On 5/5/07, Chris Mullins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've got a few issues that I think need being brought up:
1 - Avatars. It's a feature users expect, and a client without them
can't even be considered a toy these days. None of these client specs
talk about Avatars. This is something that needs
On 5/5/07, Chris Mullins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- File transfer. Come on guys! :)
Which of XEP-0047, XEP-0065, XEP-0066, XEP-0095, XEP-0137, XEP-0166,
XEP-0176 are you thinking about in particular?
--
- Norman Rasmussen
- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Home page: http://norman.rasmussen.co.za/
On Saturday 05 May 2007 7:16 am, Norman Rasmussen wrote:
On 5/5/07, Chris Mullins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- File transfer. Come on guys! :)
Which of XEP-0047, XEP-0065, XEP-0066, XEP-0095, XEP-0137, XEP-0166,
XEP-0176 are you thinking about in particular?
XEP-96 and its dependencies is the
On 5 May 2007, at 01:18, Chris Mullins wrote:
1 - Avatars.
We could have pep avatars come in as a dependency, but it does throw
the requirement for PEP in there, and that means we should have PEP
as a server dependency somewhere.
2 - Rich Messaging.
I've had a couple of issues with
On 5 May 2007, at 10:13, Sander Devrieze wrote:
I vote for the basic PEP XEP and do not specifically require any of
the XEPs that require PEP (like User Avatar)
I think PEP is an enabler XEP, you never use PEP on its own, so if we
don't require anything which is based on PEP I'm not sure it
On 5/5/07, Kevin Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5 May 2007, at 10:13, Sander Devrieze wrote:
I vote for the basic PEP XEP and do not specifically require any of
the XEPs that require PEP (like User Avatar)
I think PEP is an enabler XEP, you never use PEP on its own, so if we
don't require
PROTECTED]
Cc: jdev@jabber.org
Subject: [Standards] Re: compliance levels for 2008
So far there has been no discussion of this topic. I know that some XMPP
Council members voiced concerns about some features in a recent meeting
but they have not yet posted to the list. Silence will be taken
