On 9/4/20 11:06 AM, Andrew Nenakhov wrote:
> […] if you really
> want a compliance suite, you shouldn't pollute the list of extensions
> with this day-to-day bureaucracy, but simply publish a 'compliance
> suite' page on https://xmpp.org/compliance/ URL and update it when
> necessary. You get
We don't really care. In part, because we have implemented far too
many extensions that are necessary to provide speedy work on iOS/web
platforms, some of which outright replace the ones listed in those
suites, and, in part, because the XEPs are lately grossly misused by
the XSF, being used now
On 2020/09/02, Tedd Sterr wrote:
> I suspect their main benefit, rather than for implementations to claim some
> level of compliance, is as a guide to which features are in use across the
> ecosystem, and therefore worthwhile to implement. As federation requires
> overlapping feature-sets, this
* Dave Cridland [2020-09-02 17:27]:
> If you have an XMPP product or public project, do you claim compliance with
> XEP-0423?
I'd love to claim yaxim's compliance with Core IM and Advanced Mobile,
but can't due to a lack of badges.
I'm not sure what the marketing effect of such compliance
On 02.09.20 17:23, Dave Cridland wrote:
Hey all,
Really simple questions, so please do reply and answer:
If you have an XMPP product or public project, do you claim compliance
with XEP-0423?
Converse is about 80% compliant.
https://github.com/conversejs/converse.js/issues/1398
I think
Am Mittwoch, den 02.09.2020, 16:23 +0100 schrieb Dave Cridland:
> Hey all,
>
> Really simple questions, so please do reply and answer:
>
> If you have an XMPP product or public project, do you claim
> compliance with XEP-0423?
>
> If you do not claim compliance, are you aiming for compliance
I suspect their main benefit, rather than for implementations to claim some
level of compliance, is as a guide to which features are in use across the
ecosystem, and therefore worthwhile to implement. As federation requires
overlapping feature-sets, this neatly answers the question: "if there
The year I revamped the compliance suites I went to a presentation at
FOSDEM where the Telepathy folks (I think? Might have been libpurple)
were discussing adding features to make themselves compatible.
I don't think anyone advertises support, but we haven't given them a way
to do so. End users
We have not, for Openfire. We've never had anyone ask us if the product has
a particular level of compliance either. That's not to say that there is no
interest, but I believe there's not much interest, at least not in our
community.
I'd be happy to start including compliance claims, but,
Hi,
we evaluated Gajim's comliance [1] according to XEP-0423. Gajim seems to meet
the requirements to be a 'Core Client' in the 'XMPP IM Compliance Suite'. In
order for Gajim to meet the requirements of 'Advanced Client', support for
XEP-0410 (MUC Self Ping) would need to be implemented. We're
> If you have an XMPP product or public project, do you claim compliance with
> XEP-0423?
For Monal we are aiming for compliance in the long run.
- tmolitor
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Hey all,
Really simple questions, so please do reply and answer:
If you have an XMPP product or public project, do you claim compliance with
XEP-0423?
If you do not claim compliance, are you aiming for compliance with XEP-0423?
Dave.
___
Standards
12 matches
Mail list logo
