On 4/6/11 8:11 AM, Matthew Wild wrote:
On 6 April 2011 14:54, Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Matthew A. Miller
linuxw...@outer-planes.net wrote:
On Apr 6, 2011, at 07:48 , Kevin Smith wrote:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Matthew A. Miller
On Apr 11, 2011, at 13:04 , Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 4/6/11 8:11 AM, Matthew Wild wrote:
On 6 April 2011 14:54, Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Matthew A. Miller
linuxw...@outer-planes.net wrote:
On Apr 6, 2011, at 07:48 , Kevin Smith wrote:
On
On Mon Apr 11 20:08:36 2011, Matthew A. Miller wrote:
The reasoning here is using jid is (or appears to be) much less
of a breaking change than nick. Maybe if this were a pre-draft
spec, we'd be more comfortable moving to nick; but it's not, so
we're not (-:
You reckon anyone actually
On 4/11/11 1:08 PM, Matthew A. Miller wrote:
On Apr 11, 2011, at 13:04 , Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 4/6/11 8:11 AM, Matthew Wild wrote:
On 6 April 2011 14:54, Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Matthew A. Miller
linuxw...@outer-planes.net wrote:
On
On 04/06/2011 05:24 AM, Matthew Wild wrote:
I think being able to use a nickname for the actor is a decent enough
middle ground to be reasonable. It turns out it is not that hard to do
protocol-wise either. The actor element currently has a 'jid'
attribute, and we can add a 'nick' attribute as
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Florent Le Coz lo...@louiz.org wrote:
On 04/06/2011 05:24 AM, Matthew Wild wrote:
I think being able to use a nickname for the actor is a decent enough
middle ground to be reasonable. It turns out it is not that hard to do
protocol-wise either. The actor element
On 04/08/2011 08:56 PM, Florent Le Coz wrote:
The server could still set a “jid” attribute, for backward
compatibility, but with the room fulljid instead.
actor nick='MattJ' jid='pros...@conference.prosody.im/MattJ' / on an
anonymous room.
actor nick='MattJ' jid='ma...@realserver.com' / on
On 4/5/11 9:59 PM, Matthew Wild wrote:
On 6 April 2011 04:45, Brian Cully bcu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 5, 2011, at 23:24, Matthew Wild mwi...@gmail.com wrote:
The only downside to this is backwards-compatibility. I haven't tested
any, but it might upset some clients to see an actor with no
On Apr 6, 2011, at 07:21 , Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 4/5/11 9:59 PM, Matthew Wild wrote:
On 6 April 2011 04:45, Brian Cully bcu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 5, 2011, at 23:24, Matthew Wild mwi...@gmail.com wrote:
The only downside to this is backwards-compatibility. I haven't tested
any,
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Matthew A. Miller
linuxw...@outer-planes.net wrote:
On Apr 6, 2011, at 07:21 , Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 4/5/11 9:59 PM, Matthew Wild wrote:
On 6 April 2011 04:45, Brian Cully bcu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 5, 2011, at 23:24, Matthew Wild mwi...@gmail.com
On Apr 6, 2011, at 07:48 , Kevin Smith wrote:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Matthew A. Miller
linuxw...@outer-planes.net wrote:
On Apr 6, 2011, at 07:21 , Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 4/5/11 9:59 PM, Matthew Wild wrote:
On 6 April 2011 04:45, Brian Cully bcu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr
On 6 April 2011 14:54, Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Matthew A. Miller
linuxw...@outer-planes.net wrote:
On Apr 6, 2011, at 07:48 , Kevin Smith wrote:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Matthew A. Miller
linuxw...@outer-planes.net wrote:
That's what
Following the MUC theme, we had a little discussion today in jabber@.
Something I hadn't really noticed before is that the actor element
in MUC (the one that tells you who performed an action like a kick or
a ban) specifies that you must use the bare JID of the actor.
This seems a really strange
On Apr 5, 2011, at 23:24, Matthew Wild mwi...@gmail.com wrote:
The only downside to this is backwards-compatibility. I haven't tested
any, but it might upset some clients to see an actor with no 'jid'.
Why can't the JID be no more than the room JID, and rely on existing mechanisms
to map that
On 6 April 2011 04:45, Brian Cully bcu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 5, 2011, at 23:24, Matthew Wild mwi...@gmail.com wrote:
The only downside to this is backwards-compatibility. I haven't tested
any, but it might upset some clients to see an actor with no 'jid'.
Why can't the JID be no more
15 matches
Mail list logo
