FYI re XEP-0176.
Original Message
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:10:01 -0400
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-19.txt
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This
Ian Paterson wrote:
Thomas Charron:
Richard Laager wrote:
Where's the *harm* in allowing people to redistribute derivative works?
People possibly change the spec, and distribute it indistinguishable
from the original.
But is that a legitimate fear? It's easy enough to google for XEP-0045
Fabio, does the bluendo code work as an external component?
No, it's a proxy, so that users can connect to any server. It
shouldn't be difficult to modify it in order to work as component, if
you have in mind a particular application I can spend few spare cycles
for making the change ;)
--
Fabio Forno wrote:
Fabio, does the bluendo code work as an external component?
No, it's a proxy, so that users can connect to any server. It
shouldn't be difficult to modify it in order to work as component, if
you have in mind a particular application I can spend few spare cycles
for
Richard Laager wrote:
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 11:53 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
I now think it is better to split this into pieces (modularity is
good).
So something like this (some changes here and there, especially to
clarify which uses are granted)...
IANAL, of course, but this seems
On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 11:53 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
I now think it is better to split this into pieces (modularity is
good).
So something like this (some changes here and there, especially to
clarify which uses are granted)...
IANAL, of course, but this seems reasonable to me. Once
Pedro Melo wrote:
Hi,
in section 4.2.1, while discussing multiple info inside the metadata
element, the current 0.12 version has:
Each info/ element MUST specify metadata for the same avatar
image but in alternate content-types (e.g., image/png, image/gif,
and image/jpeg),
Right
Toly Menn wrote:
Hi everyone,
In RFC 3290bis4, section 7.3.4
(http://www.xmpp.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc3920bis-04.html#sasl-process-neg-abort)
the response to abort/ is aborted/, but in section 7.5.1 it is
failureaborted//failure (I omitted the namespace). I think the
