On 01-03-14 18:04, Christian Schudt wrote:
Hi,
I recently was confronted with the following requirement: Create a
(non-public members-only) room, grant membership to X contacts and
send an invitation to these X contacts.
Then after receiving the invitation, but BEFORE joining the room, the
Hi,
could you elaborate on this proposal a little bit, please?
The room creator/owner publishes a node to a pubsub service, which contains all
room members and each invitee subscribes to this node (which is equal to the
room JID?)?
What about the case, when a member invites further members?
:)
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting so bad?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying behavior on email discussion lists?
On 3/5/14, 10:16 AM, Christian Schudt wrote:
Hi,
could you elaborate on this proposal a little bit,
On 2014-03-05 11:16, Christian Schudt wrote:
Hi,
could you elaborate on this proposal a little bit, please?
Agreed. I'm a more of a fan of publish-subscribe than the next guy, but
I don't see how this is a helpful suggestion without elaboration.
Going back to the original question, I don't
Hi,
Could you elaborate a bit on the use case and the need for it? I'm not
saying it's bad or irrelevant, but XEP-0045 was not designed to solve
every possible problem related to groupchat.
A user creates a (members-only) room and adds X contacts from his roster as
member and invites them.
On 3/5/14, 11:25 AM, Christian Schudt wrote:
Hi,
Could you elaborate a bit on the use case and the need for it? I'm not
saying it's bad or irrelevant, but XEP-0045 was not designed to solve
every possible problem related to groupchat.
A user creates a (members-only) room and adds X contacts
On 05-03-14 11:46, Ralph Meijer wrote:
Hi,
could you elaborate on this proposal a little bit, please?
Agreed. I'm a more of a fan of publish-subscribe than the next guy,
but I don't see how this is a helpful suggestion without
elaboration.
OK
It would be so much easier to just allow 7.11
Ah, I see, you need the list of members, not the list of occupants.
Correct.
Yes, it seems possible that you could modify an implementation to allow
non-occupant members to perform this query. We might even possibly want
to add a note about this to the spec.
I guess you refer to 6.5? If you
I have setup the membership application Wiki page for the application period
Q2 2014
Applications are encouraged from developers and others who are actively
involved in the Jabber/XMPP community. To apply, create a page about
yourself on the Wiki:
On 05/03/14 12:30, Alexander Gnauck wrote:
I have setup the membership application Wiki page for the application
period Q2 2014
Applications are encouraged from developers and others who are
actively involved in the Jabber/XMPP community. To apply, create a
page about yourself on the
On 2014-03-05 12:48, Winfried Tilanus wrote:
[..]
Well, I *assumed* your MUC implementation did not support this.
Assuming that, you can try to change your MUC implementation (leaving
alone the question if a change to XEP-0045 is needed). But when you have
to change your MUC
Hi everyone,
Following up on the message by Lance asking for comments on
https://github.com/legastero/customxeps/blob/gh-pages/extensions/push.md,
I've come up with a couple of suggestions/questions.
* I still think it's valid to allow a component to proxy more than one
proprietary push service.
12 matches
Mail list logo
