Just to back-track a bit... I agree that making non-conformant standards (like
Google did) isn't the best for client support: in some cases it pushes things
that are otherwise required.
Look at the X-GOOGLE-TOKEN it was a feature that wasn't covered by the
standards. Even though it was unnoffic
2008/5/16 Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 05/15/2008 4:33 PM, Sander Devrieze wrote:
>> 2008/5/15 JabberForum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> I aggree. I don't really see a point in having an open letter. They know
>>> of our existence, and they'll contact us soon enough.
>>
>> An open letter
On 05/15/2008 4:33 PM, Sander Devrieze wrote:
> 2008/5/15 JabberForum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I aggree. I don't really see a point in having an open letter. They know
>> of our existence, and they'll contact us soon enough.
>
> An open letter
I don't believe in open letters. How gauche!
> maybe
2008/5/15 JabberForum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I aggree. I don't really see a point in having an open letter. They know
> of our existence, and they'll contact us soon enough.
An open letter maybe can be useful if it is done as some kind of press
release. First contact several potential walled gar
This is a great explanation. Thanks Alexey!
Sean
On 5/14/08, Alexey Nezhdanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 May 2008 19:14:44 Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
>> JabberForum wrote:
>> > From one machine, I login as : [EMAIL PROTECTED]/Resource1.
>> > Simultaneously I login in another mach
This is hot news!!! Thanks for the Fyi!
Sean
On 5/14/08, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As seen on the InterWebs:
>
> http://www.allfacebook.com/2008/05/breaking-facebook-to-launch-jabberxmpp-support/
>
> /psa
>
>
>
I aggree. I don't really see a point in having an open letter. They know
of our existence, and they'll contact us soon enough.
--
florian
'Flosoft.biz' (http://www.flosoft.biz)
florian's Profile: http://www.jabberforum.or
Hi Nick,
Although I don't think an open letter would do much harm, I'm not sure
it would do much good, frankly. Although I agree with you that lock-in
strategies are diminishing in their importance in software given the
net, in my experience it is *very* hard to convince commercial
orgs...wh
How can Facebook (and others) win by adopting XMPP to its full potential?
If we can answer this question and write an open letter to Facebook, Google,
Yahoo, Microsoft, Twitter, etc, successfully making them realize that this
is the way to go, inviting them to have access to these valuable resourc
> Illegal comparison.
Yes, everybody who knows about the technicalities knows this. But the
comparison served the basic point of illustrating why every user only
has one bare JID, which is what the OP asked.
Remko
On 14.05.2008 17:14 CE(S)T, Remko Tronçon wrote:
What is special about the resource names that we cannot accomplish just
by having a unique bare jid for both users (instead of the users/clients
differing only by resource name)
I don't think I understand the question. Every person only has on
Hi Folks,
(Lurker materializes)
One comment I would like to make about this discussion of whether or not
to work on multiprotocol clients/i.e. whytransportsmatter.
It's not realistic IMHO to expect that the whole world will transfer to
open protocols/XMPP overnight...as much as some of us w
On 05/15/2008 9:58 AM, Nicolas Vérité wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> (I miss the Jabber Journals...).
>> Yes those were nice. Too bad I don't have time to write them anymore.
>
> Do you need help?
Always. :)
Nowadays, rather than waitin
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (I miss the Jabber Journals...).
>
> Yes those were nice. Too bad I don't have time to write them anymore.
Do you need help?
Nÿco
--
Nicolas Vérité (Nÿco) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabber ID : xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Dnia 2008-05-15, czw o godzinie 10:21 +0200, Sylvain Hellegouarch pisze:
>> That's what I'm afraid of as well. Probably that they will also create
>> their own extensions like Google does. That's always a risk with
>> companies
>> that claim using open standards... well to a certain extent.
>
>
On 05/15/2008 8:39 AM, Sander Devrieze wrote:
> 2008/5/15 Nick Vidal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Nicolas Vérité <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>> we have to help them implement a real XMPP service,
>>> respecting the XEP, and playing fair with XSF,
>>> pushing/helping
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Sander Devrieze
> Sent: 15 May 2008 04:47 PM
> To: Jabber/XMPP software development list
> Subject: Re: [jdev] Facebook XMPP
>
> 2008/5/15 Nick Vidal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Sanders: you do support user
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Sander Devrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> What about a list of social networks which we predict (or know for
> sure) will adopt XMPP in the future? That may prevent some useless
> work in the future and it gives people a nice indication that XMPP is
> the future
2008/5/15 Nick Vidal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Sanders: you do support users who use AIM and MSN, since you *waste your
> time* making sure coccinella works with transports. And you do support users
> of Microsoft Windows, since you *wast your time* making sure coccinella
> works in Windows. And this
Sanders: you do support users who use AIM and MSN, since you *waste your
time* making sure coccinella works with transports. And you do support users
of Microsoft Windows, since you *wast your time* making sure coccinella
works in Windows. And this is a good thing! Thank you! :)
2008/5/15 Nick Vidal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Nicolas Vérité <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> we have to help them implement a real XMPP service,
>> respecting the XEP, and playing fair with XSF,
>> pushing/helping them contributing to the XEP processes,
>> and int
Dnia 2008-05-15, czw o godzinie 10:21 +0200, Sylvain Hellegouarch pisze:
> That's what I'm afraid of as well. Probably that they will also create
> their own extensions like Google does. That's always a risk with
> companies
> that claim using open standards... well to a certain extent.
And this i
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Nicolas Vérité <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> we have to help them implement a real XMPP service,
> respecting the XEP, and playing fair with XSF,
> pushing/helping them contributing to the XEP processes,
> and interop tests, and more...
>
I agree. We should draft
2008/5/15 Nick Vidal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Sander Devrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> btw: very funny that very recently both Digsby and Adium people wasted
>> their time with implementing Facebook support...their code can soon be
>> directed to the waste
>> users already do have unique bare jids. Full
>>jids allow a client instance to also be addressible, so both users,
>>servers, and clients are all fully and individually addressible.
Makes it clear. Thanks!!
-Santhosh
--
santhosh.kulandaiyan
--
> Wether or not you're against or with the walled gardens,
It doesn't even matter whether or not you're for or against walled
gardens. Being against people who *interface* these walled gardens
into open source / open protocols, *that's* a very strange attitude.
That's what Nick tried to say, and h
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Nick Vidal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Sander Devrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
---8<--- cut
Wether or not you're against or with the walled gardens,
we have to help them implement a real XMPP service,
respecting the XEP, and
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Sander Devrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> btw: very funny that very recently both Digsby and Adium people wasted
> their time with implementing Facebook support...their code can soon be
> directed to the waste bin...never take the risk to add support for
> wall
On Wed May 14 15:22:35 2008, JabberForum wrote:
What is special about the resource names that we cannot accomplish
just
by having a unique bare jid for both users (instead of the
users/clients
differing only by resource name)
There's only one user, so only one bare jid. Bare jids refer to
On Thu May 15 09:32:12 2008, Richard Dobson wrote:
That's what I'm afraid of as well. Probably that they will also
create
their own extensions like Google does. That's always a risk with
companies
that claim using open standards... well to a certain extent.
Just have to see what happens, a
On Wednesday 14 May 2008 19:14:44 Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
> JabberForum wrote:
> > From one machine, I login as : [EMAIL PROTECTED]/Resource1.
> > Simultaneously I login in another machine as
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]/Resource2.
> >
> > The 2 JIDs differ only by the Resource names..
> >
> > What is s
>>> Lets just wait and see what happens.
>>
>> I think that's the best option indeed and I'll stop my paranoia for now
>> ;)
>
> I personally thanked and congratulated them by e-mail,
> underlining they did a good choice.
>
> I also asked for an opening of their S2S,
> and proposed my help..
>
> T
>> Lets just wait and see what happens.
>
> I think that's the best option indeed and I'll stop my paranoia for now ;)
I personally thanked and congratulated them by e-mail,
underlining they did a good choice.
I also asked for an opening of their S2S,
and proposed my help..
Though they were floo
> Lets just wait and see what happens.
>
I think that's the best option indeed and I'll stop my paranoia for now ;)
- Sylvain
--
Sylvain Hellegouarch
http://www.defuze.org
I wasn't so afraid about the scaling as much as the duplication of intent.
Granted I've never used their chat feature (I haven't used Facebook in
ages really) but if it does what it says on the box why would you have two
distinct protocols to perform the same job? It seems costly in the sense
th
>
>>> I highly doubt they are dropping their technology, the web based chat
>>> will im sure stay, just like google has the web based gtalk inside of
>>> gmail, they are just adding an XMPP interface to their chat app.
>>>
>>
>> If they do, I wonder how sustainable that would be. That would seem l
I highly doubt they are dropping their technology, the web based chat
will im sure stay, just like google has the web based gtalk inside of
gmail, they are just adding an XMPP interface to their chat app.
If they do, I wonder how sustainable that would be. That would seem like a
costly mo
>
>> To come back at Sander's point, I don't think we can blame client's
>> developers indeed but rather we should wonder why Facebook has dropped
>> their own technology like that?
> I highly doubt they are dropping their technology, the web based chat
> will im sure stay, just like google has th
To come back at Sander's point, I don't think we can blame client's
developers indeed but rather we should wonder why Facebook has dropped
their own technology like that?
I highly doubt they are dropping their technology, the web based chat
will im sure stay, just like google has the web based
On May 14, 2008, at 16:22, JabberForum wrote:
What would you quote as a real world use of the resource name that
appears in the JID..?
Lets say, as an example,
From one machine, I login as : [EMAIL PROTECTED]/Resource1.
Simultaneously I login in another machine as
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/Resource2.
40 matches
Mail list logo
