Hello,
I was happy to run into XEP-0322, explaining a path of integration for
the compact XML representation of EXI.
The fully specified path assumes starting off with fullblown XML and
then switching to EXI; this is a scenario that would work when the
viewpoint is saving bandwidth. Another
On 25 Jun 2015, at 11:11, Daniel Gultsch dan...@gultsch.de wrote:
As I understand this MUC2 should not rely replace the current MUC but provide
an alternative.
Not really, the aim is to fix the issues MUC has, and produce something better
that can be used in its place in the future.
Someone
Hi,
2015-06-25 10:27 GMT+02:00 Kevin Smith kevin.sm...@isode.com:
Thinking a bit about the MUC2 stuff. MUC1 had Anon/semianon/nonanon. We’ve
pretty much killed off fully anonymous rooms in MUC1.
Can people share their thoughts on usecases for semi-anon, please? It’s
not entirely clear to me
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Kevin Smith kevin.sm...@isode.com wrote:
Can people share their thoughts on usecases for semi-anon, please? It’s not
entirely clear to me what these are (users who want anonymity seem to already
be using throw-away JIDs to achieve that, instead of relying on
On 25 jun. 2015, at 10:27, Kevin Smith kevin.sm...@isode.com wrote:
Thinking a bit about the MUC2 stuff. MUC1 had Anon/semianon/nonanon. We’ve
pretty much killed off fully anonymous rooms in MUC1.
Can people share their thoughts on usecases for semi-anon, please? It’s not
entirely
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Kevin Smith kevin.sm...@isode.com wrote:
On 25 Jun 2015, at 15:28, Peter Saint-Andre - yet pe...@andyet.net wrote:
Semi-anonymous rooms are like IRC channels. Draw your own conclusions for
whether that's good or bad.
I don’t think that’s true, is it? Having
On 25.06.2015 17:09, Thijs Alkemade wrote:
On 25 jun. 2015, at 10:27, Kevin Smith kevin.sm...@isode.com wrote:
Thinking a bit about the MUC2 stuff. MUC1 had Anon/semianon/nonanon. We’ve
pretty much killed off fully anonymous rooms in MUC1.
Can people share their thoughts on usecases for
On 25 Jun 2015, at 15:28, Peter Saint-Andre - yet pe...@andyet.net wrote:
On 6/25/15 2:27 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
Thinking a bit about the MUC2 stuff. MUC1 had Anon/semianon/nonanon.
s/had/has/
I think ‘had’ was right. Anonymous rooms were removed in 0.6 by a certain “PSA”
:)
Now it has
On 25 Jun 2015, at 15:48, Sam Whited s...@samwhited.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Kevin Smith kevin.sm...@isode.com wrote:
On 25 Jun 2015, at 15:28, Peter Saint-Andre - yet pe...@andyet.net wrote:
Semi-anonymous rooms are like IRC channels. Draw your own conclusions for
On 25 June 2015 at 15:28, Peter Saint-Andre - yet pe...@andyet.net wrote:
On 6/25/15 2:27 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
Thinking a bit about the MUC2 stuff. MUC1 had Anon/semianon/nonanon.
s/had/has/
We’ve pretty much killed off fully anonymous rooms in MUC1.
I think those were never
On 6/25/15 8:39 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
On 25 Jun 2015, at 15:28, Peter Saint-Andre - yet pe...@andyet.net
wrote:
On 6/25/15 2:27 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
Thinking a bit about the MUC2 stuff. MUC1 had
Anon/semianon/nonanon.
s/had/has/
I think ‘had’ was right. Anonymous rooms were removed in
On 25 Jun 2015, at 16:59, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
Removing a widely deployed feature doesn't strike me as a viable option.
Well, if we s/widely deployed/widely required/ then I agree. But not baking
something into the MUC2 core doesn’t necessarily mean removing the feature. If
On 25 Jun 2015 18:05, Kevin Smith kevin.sm...@isode.com wrote:
On 25 Jun 2015, at 16:59, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
Removing a widely deployed feature doesn't strike me as a viable option.
Well, if we s/widely deployed/widely required/ then I agree. But not
baking something into
On 25 June 2015 at 09:27, Kevin Smith kevin.sm...@isode.com wrote:
Thinking a bit about the MUC2 stuff. MUC1 had Anon/semianon/nonanon. We’ve
pretty much killed off fully anonymous rooms in MUC1.
Can people share their thoughts on usecases for semi-anon, please? It’s
not entirely clear to me
On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:51 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - yet pe...@andyet.net
wrote:
Has anyone else deployed this kind of pattern? If so, how did you solve the
problem of service endpoint discovery?
[BA] For WebRTC apps, the guest service is typically configured on the web
server (e.g. In
On Jun 25, 2015, at 8:13 PM, Bernard Aboba bernard.ab...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 25, 2015, at 4:51 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - yet pe...@andyet.net
wrote:
Has anyone else deployed this kind of pattern? If so, how did you solve the
problem of service endpoint discovery?
[BA] For
Lance Stout and I had a conversation the other day about what we call
guest access to an XMPP application. As example, consider a chat
service (text, video, what have you) that has registered users and the
ability for registered users to invite ad-hoc users to a session or
meeting. This kind
Thinking a bit about the MUC2 stuff. MUC1 had Anon/semianon/nonanon. We’ve
pretty much killed off fully anonymous rooms in MUC1.
Can people share their thoughts on usecases for semi-anon, please? It’s not
entirely clear to me what these are (users who want anonymity seem to already
be using
18 matches
Mail list logo
