Maciek Niedzielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also for implementation notes: if we continue reading client name from
identity/, there should be probably a reminder that there may be
multiple identity/ elements, but we are only interested in client/pc
here (and this may be not always the first
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:45:04AM +0100, Magnus Henoch wrote:
Maciek Niedzielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also for implementation notes: if we continue reading client name from
identity/, there should be probably a reminder that there may be
multiple identity/ elements, but we are only
On Wt, 2008-01-22 at 15:43 -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
A question: should this clientinfo extension include the software name,
or do we assume that is provided properly in the service discovery
identity? If the latter, I'll make that clear in the extension spec. (It
seems preferable to
On Pn, 2008-01-21 at 21:56 -0600, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
Abstract: This document specifies an XMPP protocol extension for
including detailed data about an XMPP client in service discovery
responses.
URL: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/clientinfo.html
I've implemented it in
Tomasz Sterna wrote:
On Pn, 2008-01-21 at 21:56 -0600, XMPP Extensions Editor wrote:
Abstract: This document specifies an XMPP protocol extension for
including detailed data about an XMPP client in service discovery
responses.
URL: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/clientinfo.html
I've
Kevin Smith wrote:
On Jan 22, 2008 6:02 AM, Tobias Markmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
URL: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/clientinfo.html
What are the enhancements of this XEP compared to XEP-0092? Why should
one implement this XEP and not XEP-0092? Since both XEPs seem to do
On Jan 22, 2008 6:02 AM, Tobias Markmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
URL: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/clientinfo.html
What are the enhancements of this XEP compared to XEP-0092? Why should
one implement this XEP and not XEP-0092? Since both XEPs seem to do
the same job I think there is
Well, then the XEP should say something about that or even better that
this protocol should be used instead of XEP-0092 since it's generally
bad to have two standards with the same or nearly the same purpose. In
the end the target of a standardization organization is to have just
one protocol
Tobias Markmann wrote:
On Jan 22, 2008 10:14 AM, Richard Dobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin Smith wrote:
On Jan 22, 2008 6:02 AM, Tobias Markmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
URL: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/clientinfo.html
What are the enhancements of this XEP compared to
On Jan 22, 2008 5:26 PM, Richard Dobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, then the XEP should say something about that or even better that
this protocol should be used instead of XEP-0092 since it's generally
bad to have two standards with the same or nearly the same purpose. In
the end the
On Jan 22, 2008 11:01 PM, Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Tobias Markmann wrote:
On Jan 22, 2008 10:14 AM, Richard Dobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kevin Smith wrote:
On Jan 22, 2008 6:02 AM, Tobias Markmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
URL:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
A question: should this clientinfo extension include the software name,
or do we assume that is provided properly in the service discovery
identity? If the latter, I'll make that clear in the extension spec. (It
seems preferable to have the same information in only one
Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
A question: should this clientinfo extension include the software
name, or do we assume that is provided properly in the service
discovery identity? If the latter, I'll make that clear in the
extension spec. (It seems preferable to have the
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
BTW I think it is unclear (at least for some people) what should be
given as a 'name' in identity category='client' type='pc'/.
Probably because XEP-0030 doesn't really say. :)
I don't remember the details, but some time ago people
Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
BTW I think it is unclear (at least for some people) what should be
given as a 'name' in identity category='client' type='pc'/.
Probably because XEP-0030 doesn't really say. :)
I don't remember the details, but
On Jan 22, 2008, at 4:06 PM, Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
Also for implementation notes: if we continue reading client name
from identity/, there should be probably a reminder that there may
be multiple identity/ elements, but we are only interested in
client/pc here (and this may be not
On Jan 22, 2008 4:56 AM, XMPP Extensions Editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
Title: Client Information
Abstract: This document specifies an XMPP protocol extension for including
detailed data about an XMPP client in service
17 matches
Mail list logo
