Am 23.10.2008 um 22:12 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
XEP-0038 has not been touched in years. If someone wants to take over
authorship of that document (or wants to author a replacement), please
let me know.
Well, I'd like to take over, but split it into two XEPs: One defining
JISP and one
David Waite already wrote most of what I wanted to say. I'd just like
to add a few more points.
I agree with you (Dave) that servers can function without constructing
a complete DOM for every stanza. But I disagree with some of what you
said.
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 4:33 AM, Dave Cridland [EMAIL
In the Openfire implementation of Pubsub, the following field/ is
returned in a form (for default configuration of nodes):
field var=pubsub#itemreply type=list-single label=Select
entity that should receive replies to itemsvalueowner/value/field
All of the other field/'s encapsulate the
fre 2008-10-24 klockan 10:11 +0200 skrev Jonathan Schleifer:
Am 23.10.2008 um 22:12 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
XEP-0038 has not been touched in years. If someone wants to take over
authorship of that document (or wants to author a replacement), please
let me know.
Well, I'd like to
Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
Am 23.10.2008 um 22:12 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
XEP-0038 has not been touched in years. If someone wants to take over
authorship of that document (or wants to author a replacement), please
let me know.
Well, I'd like to take over, but split it into two XEPs:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Does any client use JISP?
Psi does.
--
Maciek
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Maciek Niedzielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does any client use JISP?
Psi does.
I'm fairly sure we're not the only ones, although I can't remember
offhand who else does.
/K
Brett Zamir wrote:
In the Openfire implementation of Pubsub, the following field/ is
returned in a form (for default configuration of nodes):
field var=pubsub#itemreply type=list-single label=Select entity
that should receive replies to itemsvalueowner/value/field
All of the other
Fabio Forno wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that's a spec bug:
s/available/connected/
I think so. For me it makes more sense if in points 1 3 of paragrah
11 we use connected (after that I can start filing tickets across
the
I've just submitted draft-saintandre-rfc3921bis-07.
You can find the spec here:
http://xmpp.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc3921bis-07.html
The SVN diff from -06 is here:
http://is.gd/4ISZ
See also:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, I think that the rule from rfc3920 is still in force:
***
If the JID contained in the 'to' attribute is of the form
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource and there is a connected resource that exactly
matches the full
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yep, but I see now that there is another possibile conflict between
rfc3920 and 3921:
In the following rule we say: # If the JID contains a resource
identifier and there exists no connected resource that matches the
Pandion was the first one to implement JISP support. In fact back in those
days I worked with Adam Theo to come up with XEP-0038. I think other clients
supporting it are Coccinella, Tkabber and JAJC. Maybe more. In my experience
it seems like a good format though some extensions/modifications have
Hi, I have my outstanding XEP-proto still...
https://wiki.sch.bme.hu/bin/view/_Munka/JabberCustomSmileys
Haven't touched it in a while for sure, because when I implemented it
(anyone can ask for my java implementation) it seemed to me it's pretty hard
to implement.
I still think that MSN could
Am 24.10.2008 um 23:48 schrieb Adam Nemeth:
Hi, I have my outstanding XEP-proto still...
https://wiki.sch.bme.hu/bin/view/_Munka/JabberCustomSmileys
Haven't touched it in a while for sure, because when I implemented
it (anyone can ask for my java implementation) it seemed to me it's
fre 2008-10-24 klockan 23:52 +0200 skrev Jonathan Schleifer:
Am 24.10.2008 um 23:48 schrieb Adam Nemeth:
Hi, I have my outstanding XEP-proto still...
https://wiki.sch.bme.hu/bin/view/_Munka/JabberCustomSmileys
Haven't touched it in a while for sure, because when I implemented
it
Oh, 231 reached draft?
Well, then I need to work on compatibility with that :)
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Marcus Lundblad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
fre 2008-10-24 klockan 23:52 +0200 skrev Jonathan Schleifer:
Am 24.10.2008 um 23:48 schrieb Adam Nemeth:
Hi, I have my outstanding
lör 2008-10-25 klockan 00:13 +0200 skrev Adam Nemeth:
Oh, 231 reached draft?
Well, then I need to work on compatibility with that :)
Yep. It's been in draft for a while.
It would be nice to have support in more clients. At the moment Jabbim
has support for it in their SVN development
fre 2008-10-24 klockan 16:31 -0600 skrev Peter Saint-Andre:
Sebastiaan Deckers wrote:
IIRC the term smiley is copyrighted by some company. That's why I
always use emoticon.
Correct:
http://www.smileyworld.com/
And don't use Buddy List®, either!
Peter
I heard AOL registered
http://xmpp.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc3921bis-07.html#rfc.section.3.1.3
3. If the contact exists and the user already has a subscription to
the user's presence...
should be
3. If the contact exists and the user already has a subscription to
the contact's presence...
--
Waqas
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 3:12 AM, Artur Hefczyc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I am the server developer so let me add something to the discussion
even if this is not a direct response to anybody post.
I think I understand the point but my opinion is if people want to push
more and more
Hello
I have a use case where I need to publish multiple events in multiple nodes in
a single publish call (to avoid multiple server trips). Whereas the batch
processing feature present in the XEO 0060 allows publishing multiple items
within a single node, I need multiple items in different
22 matches
Mail list logo
