On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
But it's hard - I think there's a good argument for moving any purging and
resync to a different spec at least, and keeping MAM simple in scope.
Oh please oh please oh please, yes.
/K
On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Matthew Wild mwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 October 2013 17:17, Simon Tennant si...@buddycloud.com wrote:
Also, expanding Spencer's point,
other clients connected to the account would also need to be notified
of the deletion - and they might be offline at
FYI
(Yes, I have, yet again, put a meeting in the wrong year. It should, of
course, be 2013-10-02)
/K
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:59 PM
Subject: Minutes 2013-09-25
To: XMPP Council
Minutes for Council meeting 2013-09-25
Room logs
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 9:51 AM
Subject: Minutes 2013-09-18
To: XMPP Council
1) Roll call
Kev, Tobias, Matt M. present. Matt W. sends apologies. Ralph absent.
(Discussion of outstanding votes)
2) Advance XEP-0301 to Draft
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk wrote:
Thanks Lance.
Does anyone else have feedback on 152? Is anyone other than Lance using it?
Anyone, please?
/K
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Lance Stout lancest...@gmail.com wrote:
Please consider the following
FYI
/K
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 1:57 PM
Subject: Minutes 20130821 20130828
To: XMPP Council
Minutes for meeting 21st August
Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/130821/
1) Roll call
Matt Miller sends apologies. Kev, Ralph, Tobias
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.imwrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The following XEPs have not been updated for 12+ months and thus are
due to be automatically deferred for inactivity:
XEP-0186 - Invisible Command
XEP-0257 - Client
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:30 AM
Subject: Minutes 20140724 20140807 20140814
To: XMPP Council
Sorry, I think I've missed a couple, so here are the last few weeks'
Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/130724/
1) Roll call
Kev
These are, of course, for 20130724, 20130807 and 20130814. We're not quite
yet into 2014.
/K
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk wrote:
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:30 AM
Subject: Minutes
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 7:10 PM, Maxim Ignatenko gelraen...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any draft that addresses the problem of silently losing
messages when client's TCP connection times out?
XEP 198.
/K
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
Other technologies that support forwarding limit the number of
forwards (where the max-forwards is decremented each time the message
is forwarded). It seems that we probably need something like this in
XEP-0297 so that
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Adán Sánchez de Pedro Crespo
adans...@waalt.com wrote:
Hello everyone,
Hi,
I hope this is the proper mailing list for asking about standards
implementation. If not, please tell me where to reach instead.
This is good.
I'm currently developing Loqui, a open
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
On 7/16/13 3:23 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im
wrote:
On 7/14/13 1:13 PM, Mathieu Pasquet wrote:
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 05:36:51PM +0100, Kevin Smith
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
On 7/14/13 1:13 PM, Mathieu Pasquet wrote:
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 05:36:51PM +0100, Kevin Smith wrote:
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Mathieu Pasquet mathi...@mathieui.net
wrote:
I was starting to implement
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Justin Karneges jus...@affinix.com wrote:
On 07/16/2013 11:25 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 7/15/13 11:31 PM, Justin Karneges wrote:
I wonder if it couldn't hurt to standardize a simple thing like this?
presence from=alice to=bob
statusI'm here/status
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
On 7/8/13 4:23 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
On 8 Jul 2013 04:32, Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk
mailto:ke...@kismith.co.uk wrote:
In 191, if A as blocked B, B's presences to A should be dropped. Any
directed presence
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Mathieu Pasquet mathi...@mathieui.net wrote:
I was starting to implement carbons in poezio when I came across some
kind of design issue that I haven’t been able to work out.
As I understand it (and in the use case explained in the introduction),
Carbons provide
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:30 AM
Subject: Minutes 20130710
To: XMPP Council
Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/130710/
1) Roll call
Matt, Matt, Tobias, Ralph, Kev present.
2) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/chat-markers.html
In 191, if A as blocked B, B's presences to A should be dropped. Any
directed presence from A to B should be bounced. I can't see a
description of what should happen for A's broadcast presence - by a
literal reading of the XEP it seems to be unaffected (or I've missed
something).
Thoughts?
/K
On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Spencer MacDonald
spencer.macdonald.ot...@gmail.com wrote:
Before I send in my update with the above changes, I am think about adding a
requirement that all messages that can be marked, should have an allowed
child element.
allowed
FYI.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 11:12 AM
Subject: Minutes 20130703
To: XMPP Council
Room logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/130703/
1) Roll call.
Matt, Matt, Ralph, Kev present, Tobias absent.
2) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/http
After reviewing the Chat Markers proposal for Council, I have two main concerns.
1) It's not clear to me that by adding a read/ equivalent to 184,
using MAM and chat states that we wouldn't have a simpler solution
with more re-use of existing paradigms. This comment isn't blocking.
2) It seems
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Spencer MacDonald
spencer.macdonald.ot...@gmail.com wrote:
I think as you suggested that it would be wise to point out that Chats
Markers are only heuristics, not having to ack every message with a receipt
is one of the major benefits of using Chat Markers so I
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 2:21 PM
Subject: Minutes 20130626
To: XMPP Council
1) Roll call
Matt, Matt, Kev, Tobias present
2) Rehash of previous meeting for Kev's benefit.
3) Date of next meeting
*TIME CHANGED*
3rd July, 15:10
Too late for the LC, I realise, but earlier than the Council vote tomorrow.
4.2.2 - I'm aware than we've had debates in the past about how much
needs to be MTI. As things currently stand, the XEP is fairly clear
and straightforward, and I wonder if making all of these MTI would be
much of an
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Gunnar Hellstrom
gunnar.hellst...@omnitor.se wrote:
On 2013-07-02 20:28, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/2/13 11:46 AM, Mark Rejhon wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk
mailto:ke
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Mark Rejhon marky...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk wrote:
4.2.2 - I'm aware than we've had debates in the past about how much
needs to be MTI. As things currently stand, the XEP is fairly clear
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Mark Rejhon marky...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk wrote:
6.2.1 - I suspect this should be more prominent than buried inside
Implementation Notes
[Comment Question]
I'm glad you think this section
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:41 AM
Subject: Minutes 20130612
To: XMPP Council
Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/130612/
1) Roll call
MattM, Ralph, Kev present. Tobias and MattW absent with apologies
2) Date of next meeting
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
There are sufficient pre-existing deployed implementation which require you
to join the room first (as far as I'm aware) that the best you can hope for
here is a MAY, or possibly SHOULD (but implementations exist that ...).
Hi all,
As things stand in XEP-0045, my reading says that you don't need to
join a room to destroy it (or to perform various other actions) - this
seems useful to me and I'm keen to keep this behaviour, but I'm aware
that there's scope for thinking that you need to be joined to the room
first.
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Lance Stout lancest...@gmail.com wrote:
After reading the new proposed Chat Markers XEP, the thought occurred of why
are we using explicit enable/disable queries for Chat Markers and Carbons?
What if we instead make it so that if you want to use them,
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:04 AM
Subject: Minutes 20130522
To: XMPP Council
Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/130522/
1) Roll call
Matt M, Matt W, Ralph, Tobias, Kev present
2) http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0301.html
Issue
FYI.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:50 PM
Subject: Minutes 2013-05-08
To: XMPP Council
1) Roll call
Kev, Matt W. and Tobias present, Matt M. and Ralph send apologies.
2) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/pubsub-subs.html
Accept
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Gunnar Hellstrom
gunnar.hellst...@omnitor.se wrote:
We are clearly down
to issues where it would be better to take it through last call.
Ignoring everything else as I've not found time to read the thread
yet, I'll point out that up until LC the authors are free
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Noah Schwartz noah.schwar...@gmail.com wrote:
This could definitely work off of message ID and as an extension of XEP-0313
I think as long as message ID's conveyed some sort of order. Otherwise, it
could just go by timestamp.
It doesn't need ordering within the
Replying to this would have been much easier if you'd not top posted!
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Peter Waher peter.wa...@clayster.com wrote:
The iqs are bare JID instead of full JID.
Yes. Many sensor configurations may be done in a production environment,
where runtime resource/session
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Yann Leboulanger aste...@lagaule.org wrote:
While starting to implement XEP-0191, I realized that there is a regression
in the feature Gajim offers if I don't use privacy lists: The ability to
block a group by its name.
Yann - I've been thinking about this, and
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
XEP-0077 is silent about how to handle registration with a server when
the request contains a 'to' address. Consider the following example of
an admin (or automated
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:48 PM, Tobias Markmann
tmarkm...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:32 PM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
Well there's also a harvesting problem to solve, I think. You need to make
it generally hard for a spammer to try all email addresses they
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: Minutes 2013-03-20
To: XMPP Council
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
6) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/sensor-data.html
Accept as Experimental?
No objections
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Ben Langfeld b...@langfeld.co.uk wrote:
I'm in the process of preparing a proto-XEP, and need to give examples
containing CDATA like so:
example caption=Controlling party requests a new output
component![CDATA[
iq from='jul...@capulet.lit/balcony'
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:24 AM
Subject: Minutes 2013-03-20
To: XMPP Council
Minutes for Council meeting 2013-03-20.
Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/130320/
1) Roll call
Kev, Matt, Matt and Ralph present, Tobias absent.
2
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 9:29 AM
Subject: Minutes 2013-02-27
To: XMPP Council
Room logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/130227/
1) Roll call
All present
2) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/last-seen-online.html
Accept
Hi folks,
While I was originally writing 289, I misinterpreted a requirement
I'd heard, and this led me to believe that master/slave mode was
needed. I've since convinced myself that only the master/master mode
is needed. If M/S is never going to be used, I'd like to remove it
from the spec.
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Mark Rejhon marky...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk wrote:
Hi folks,
While I was originally writing 289, I misinterpreted a requirement
I'd heard, and this led me to believe that master/slave mode was
needed
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Gunnar Hellström
gunnar.hellst...@omnitor.se wrote:
My conclusions are:
1. The feature will be allowed. ( deduced from your answer that Kev is asked
do do an update )
2. How edits are presented to the receiving user is out of scope, but a
recommendation to
:
On 2013-02-18 17:34, Kevin Smith wrote:
Thoughts?
Maybe this option is not very well suited for the case where there are
potentially multiple publishers, as one of them going offline would
result in the retraction of items published by others, too.
I agree
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:20 PM
Subject: Minutes 20130220
To: XMPP Council
Minutes for Council meeting 20130220
Room logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/130220/
1) Roll call.
All present
2) Last Call on XEP-0152: Reachability
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Lance Stout lancest...@gmail.com wrote:
This leaves the third use case for server/component uptime reporting
uncovered, but that seems like something that should be done via adhoc
commands like other statistics reporting, and probably already is.
I'd somehow
Folks,
It looks like purge_offline's behaviour in XEP-0060 is entirely
undefined. The pertinent bits seem to be:
1) That purge_offline means: Whether to purge all items when the
relevant publisher goes offline
2) That, when talking about a normal purge a purge request MUST NOT
result in
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:31 AM
Subject: Minutes meeting 20130206
To: XMPP Council
Room logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/130206/
1) Roll call
Ralph, Tobias, Kev present. Matt W sends apologies, Matt M absent.
2) Bidi, http
(M.M. has since +1d the LC)
/K
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk wrote:
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:31 AM
Subject: Minutes meeting 20130206
To: XMPP Council
Room logs: http://logs.xmpp.org
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Winfried Tilanus winfr...@tilanus.com wrote:
On 01/25/2013 03:16 PM, Stefan Strigler wrote:
Hi,
In order to resend unacknowledged stanzas upon resuming a stream you need to
know about request and anwers.
Clear answer, it made me realise I was thinking
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Nathan Walp nw...@pidgin.im wrote:
Somewhat related:
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2012-October/026887.html
Not entirely sure why I missed that before. I hadn't thought about the
initial presence versus idle. I guess we do need a new element for it,
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 4:24 PM
Subject: Minutes meeting 2013-01-09
To: XMPP Council
Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/130109/
1) Roll call
Kev, Matt Miller, Ralph present. MattJ sends apologies. Tobias absent.
2) XEP-0258
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 4:07 PM
Subject: Minutes meeting 2012-12-05
To: XMPP Council
Room logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/121205/
1) Roll call
Matt, Matt, Tobias and Kev present. Ralph absent.
[no items for discussion]
2
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Kozlov Konstantin yag...@yandex.ru wrote:
30.11.2012, 12:26, Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im
wrote:
Looking at http://xmpp.org/registrar/disco-categories.html I notice
that we have
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:29 AM
Subject: Minutes 2012-11-28
To: XMPP Council
Minutes for the Council meeting 2012-11-28
Room logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/121128/
1) Roll call
All present
2) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
Looking at http://xmpp.org/registrar/disco-categories.html I notice
that we have disco identities for client/handheld (e.g., PDA) and
client/phone (e.g., mobile phone), but I think those are a bit
old-fashioned by
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 4:58 PM
Subject: Council minutes 2012-11-21
To: XMPP Council
Minutes for the first Council of the new term.
Room logs - http://logs.xmpp.org/council/121121/
1) Roll call
Kev, Matt, Matt, Tobias present
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/15/12 12:21 AM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
I agree with that sentiment. Green-colored text and strange fonts
were popular when MySpace was popular. This is something
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Jefry Lagrange jefry.re...@gmail.com ote:
Sorry, I don't know how to do that. Apparently there is a script for it
gen.py, but I don't know how to use it and it finds some syntax errors that
I don't know how to fix.
Should work just with:
xsltproc xep.xsl
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 7:09 AM, Sergey Dobrov bin...@jrudevels.org wrote:
On 10/31/2012 08:05 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
It's hard for the XSF to accept a proposal as a XEP if the person who
wrote it never asks us to do so. :)
Funny thing
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Andreas Kuckartz a.kucka...@ping.de wrote:
According to http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xmpp-council/ ralphm is
currently a member of the XMPP Council.
Can someone please let me know if he has a veto right there?
Yes - the process is described in
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 5:10 PM
Subject: Minutes 20121011
To: XMPP Council
Minutes for Council 11th Oct 2012
Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/121011/
1) Roll call
Matt Miller, Kev, Ralph present. Tobias late, Matt Wild
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 5:14 PM
Subject: Minutes 2012-09-19
To: XMPP Council
1) Roll call
All present
2) End of Call for Experience on XHTML-IM (XEP-0071).
Move to Final?
Waqas has researched existing implementations and found
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 5:20 PM
Subject: Minutes 2012-09-26
To: XMPP Council
1) Roll call
Matt, Matt, Tobias present. Kev late (meeting starts after 10mins when
he arrives). Ralph late (in minutes).
2) http://xmpp.org/extensions
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:44 AM
Subject: Minutes 20120829
To: XMPP Council
Minutes for meeting 2012-08-29
Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/120829/
1) Roll call
Kev, Matt, Matt, Ralph, Tobias present.
2) Discussion of recent
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Gunnar Hellström
gunnar.hellst...@omnitor.se wrote:
On 2012-07-31 22:52, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on XEP-0308
(Last Message Correction).
Abstract: This specification defines a method for marking
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Matthew Miller
linuxw...@outer-planes.net wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Aug 23, 2012, at 07:07, Matthew Wild wrote:
Hi Jefry,
Thanks for the feedback.
On 23 August 2012 03:52, Jefry Lagrange jefry.re...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:09 PM
Subject: Minutes 20120808
To: XMPP Council
Sorry for the delay in these.
Logs:
http://logs.xmpp.org/council/120808/
1) Roll call
Matt, Matt, Tobias, Kev present, Ralph absent
2) RTT
A discussion about
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:11 PM
Subject: Minutes 20120815
To: XMPP Council
Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/120815/
1) Roll Call
Kev, Matt Miller, Tobias, Ralph present, Matt Wild sent apologies.
2) IETF
Matt Miller presented
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
jhild...@cisco.com wrote:
On 8/22/12 10:33 AM, Matthew Miller linuxw...@outer-planes.net wrote:
I agree with Sergey. If you received XHTML-IM, then any other rich text
transform ought to be disabled/bypassed.
What about URLs that are
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Mark Rejhon marky...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Matthew Miller
linuxw...@outer-planes.net wrote:
What about URLs that are not in a/ elements?
Frankly, too bad so sad. The sender really ought to have put them in
anchors in the first
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Mark Rejhon marky...@gmail.com wrote:
So, the challenge is, the paragraph needs to be written both
geek-friendly (people like you and me) and deaf-friendly (one part of
the audience).
It's worth noting that XEPs are necessarily written for the target
audience
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Sergey Dobrov bin...@jrudevels.org wrote:
On 08/15/2012 09:15 PM, jefry.re...@gmail.com wrote:
I deem blogging a necessary feature and I want to implement it (show me
your client I would like to see how you are doing). Thinking about the
implementation the
In fact, I'd argue that this spec is a technical solution to a social
problem
I note, after drafting many more acerbic replies, that this is
consistent with all specs.
Messaging is a social problem.
/K
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Yann Leboulanger aste...@lagaule.org wrote:
Hi,
I was wonder what should I do in this situation:
user A and B are connected with resource r1. They that, so messages go from
A/r1 to B/r1.
user B connects a second client with resource r2 with a higher
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Yann Leboulanger aste...@lagaule.org wrote:
Same thing if B just go away or na? so we cannot continue en encrypted
conversation if we go away?
Conversations with B shouldn't be unlocked while B has a single,
unchanging, resource. (I think this may be in
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Yann Leboulanger y...@leboulanger.org wrote:
On 08/15/2012 05:48 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Yann Leboulangeraste...@lagaule.org
wrote:
Hi,
I was wonder what should I do in this situation:
user A and B are connected
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Yann Leboulanger aste...@lagaule.org wrote:
On 08/15/2012 05:59 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Yann Leboulangery...@leboulanger.org
wrote:
On 08/15/2012 05:48 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Yann
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Gunnar Hellström
gunnar.hellst...@omnitor.se wrote:
On 2012-07-31 22:52, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on XEP-0308
(Last Message Correction).
Abstract: This specification defines a method for marking
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeile...@isode.com wrote:
Why is this restriction restricted to editing the last stanza sent?
Is this due to presentation issues?
If so, I think the clients are going to have to deal with them no matter what
restrictions we place on
Thanks Kurt.
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeile...@isode.com wrote:
On Jul 31, 2012, at 1:52 PM, XMPP Extensions Editor edi...@xmpp.org wrote:
This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on XEP-0308
(Last Message Correction).
Abstract: This
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Mark Rejhon marky...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Gunnar Hellström
gunnar.hellst...@omnitor.se wrote:
GHNo, please make a MUST for id= in edit previous. I can imagine
presentation cases when it is absolutely necessary to know what message
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Mark Rejhon marky...@gmail.com wrote:
Generally, in most reasonable situations in XMPP, normalizing an
already-normalized Unicode string, results in no changes. Kevin says to
specify a normalization format, but how do we know what normalization
network
The below pretty much seems sane to me.
/K
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 7:11 AM, Gunnar Hellström
gunnar.hellst...@omnitor.se wrote:
I see a need to deal with the 'xml:lang' attribute in XEP-0301.
This attribute can introduce alternative language variants of the text in
messages and other
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Mark Rejhon marky...@gmail.com wrote:
The recipient-side single JID handling still continue to provide
excellent UX in all situations even in differing behaviours (e.g.
XEP-0296 followed or not, resource locking followed or not, Google
Talk-style server carbons
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Mark Rejhon marky...@gmail.com wrote:
here), but this email aims to reduce workload for Kevin.
Thanks.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Mark Rejhon marky...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe that this email addresses most of Kevin's concerns for
section 1-5, with
I think this mail gets me up to date.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Mark Rejhon marky...@gmail.com wrote:
Due to the large number of comments from a key person at XSF (you) I agree
with you.I have many comments and questions for you first, that I'd like
you to address. I will reply in
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kevin Smith
Date: Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:04 PM
Subject: Meeting minutes 2012-07-25
To: XMPP Council
Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/120725/
1) Roll Call
Matt, Matt, Tobias, Kev present. Ralph late.
2) XHTML-IM: Issue call for experience
Sorry, your mail client seems to be doing strange things and not
marking up replies normally, so this is a bit garbled.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Gunnar Hellström
gunnar.hellst...@omnitor.se wrote:
On 2012-07-23 16:32, Kevin Smith wrote:
== Requirements ==
2.3.4 doesn't seem quite right
Splitting thread, as requested...
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Mark Rejhon marky...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk wrote:
6.2.1 - That said, if people disagree and want another 85-ish
non-disco mess, I think this can be clarified a bit
.
I'd love to hear comments from others (Gunnar, Peter, Matt, etc) on the
discussions between me and Kevin.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk wrote:
6.1.4 - it is acceptable for the transmission interval of rtt/ to
vary - yet earlier there was a SHOULD saying
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Matthew Wild mwi...@gmail.com wrote:
Howdy folks,
What is the consensus on how to handle missing fields from a submitted
data form? E.g. in the context of MUC configuration.
I see three options:
1) Reject the form
2) Keep the current value for missing
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 11:00 PM, Gunnar Hellström
gunnar.hellst...@omnitor.se wrote:
Yes, good to distinguish between service discovery, and activating support.
There is something missing in a sentence in version 0.4, chapter 5.
In order for an application to determine whether an entity
Right, thoughts about 301 (consider them early Last Call feedback, I
guess. I think it would be worth addressing them, or at least
producing an errata list of your expected edits, before asking too
many other people to review this (e.g. LC) as it took me a
considerable time and it'd be a shame to
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Mark Rejhon marky...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 3:32 AM, Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk wrote:
Including the id in an RTT element to indicate it's affecting the most
recent message seems fine. Then sending a standard 308 stanza when the
edit
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Mark Rejhon marky...@gmail.com wrote:
If I was to implement 301 and 308, but not RTT correction (the
intersection), another client would send me RTT corrections - a
significant number of stanzas that I'll then ignore. I won't fail in
any interesting way
701 - 800 of 1144 matches
Mail list logo
