(And this time I’ll remember to thank Georg for taking this on. Thanks Georg)
> On 6 Nov 2019, at 13:43, Georg Lukas wrote:
>
> * Kevin Smith [2019-11-06 12:24]:
>> I think the addition of ’66 is well-intentioned, but jabber:x:oob
>> is underspecified (it defines a syntax, but semantics are
On 6 Nov 2019, at 13:57, Daniel Gultsch wrote:
>
> Am Mi., 6. Nov. 2019 um 13:45 Uhr schrieb Georg Lukas :
>>
>> * Kevin Smith [2019-11-06 12:24]:
>>> I think the addition of ’66 is well-intentioned, but jabber:x:oob
>>> is underspecified (it defines a syntax, but semantics are
>>>
Am Mi., 6. Nov. 2019 um 13:45 Uhr schrieb Georg Lukas :
>
> * Kevin Smith [2019-11-06 12:24]:
> > I think the addition of ’66 is well-intentioned, but jabber:x:oob
> > is underspecified (it defines a syntax, but semantics are
> > missing).
>
> I agree, but nobody has written down the semantics
* Kevin Smith [2019-11-06 12:24]:
> I think the addition of ’66 is well-intentioned, but jabber:x:oob
> is underspecified (it defines a syntax, but semantics are
> missing).
I agree, but nobody has written down the semantics yet, so there is no
place to link to. On the other hand, this
> On 23 Oct 2019, at 16:07, Jonas Schäfer (XSF Editor)
> wrote:
>
> This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on
> XEP-0423.
>
> Title: XMPP Compliance Suites 2020
> Abstract:
> This document defines XMPP application categories for different use
> cases (Core, Web, IM, and
Hi goffi,
* goffi [2019-11-05 22:58]:
> I'm really busy these days and couldn't do an extensive review, but here is
> my feedback:
Thank you for your feedback!
> It's really chat focused, and I would like to see other categories, notably
> a "social" one. I would put there XEP-0277 as the bare
Oops, sorry, wrong thread. I was mentioning XEP-0402 (Bookmarks 2) of
course.
On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 8:53 AM, Evgeny wrote:
...
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe:
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 9:41 PM, Paul Schaub
wrote:
1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol
stack or to clarify an existing protocol?
2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the
introduction
and requirements?
The purpose of the XEP is unclear. The
Hello,
I'm really busy these days and couldn't do an extensive review, but here
is my feedback:
1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol
stack or to clarify an existing protocol?
Definitely, there is a high demand for this kind of list from users, and
on the dev
Hi!
I'm not quite happy with the fact that an advanced mobile client must support
push. While I understand the rationale behind this (*cough* iOS *cough*), I
dislike the fact that in order to be considered an advanced client, the client
MUST depend on a centralized push service (for example
Thanks for the effort to push this well before the end of the year. :)
On my first reading, I noticed two things:
XEP-0385 "Stateless Inline Media Sharing (SIMS)" is mentioned both in
section 1.1 "Changes since 2019", but also in section 3 "Future
Development". Is that an error, or intended? I'd
This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on
XEP-0423.
Title: XMPP Compliance Suites 2020
Abstract:
This document defines XMPP application categories for different use
cases (Core, Web, IM, and Mobile), and specifies the required XEPs
that client and server software needs to
12 matches
Mail list logo
