Have a look at the following XEP which I worked on in the past:
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0101.html
If I am getting what you are trying to do correctly I think this is the
sort of thing you might be after.
On Wed Nov 7 23:29:47 2007, Fabio Forno wrote:
On Nov 7, 2007 11:53 PM, Dave Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Hmm, this reminds me, I need to get around to finishing and
publishing an I-D before the deadline on fast reauth).
Perhaps I'm missing something... Fast reauth? You mean just a
Dnia 07-11-2007, Śr o godzinie 15:33 -0800, anders conbere pisze:
Example work flow
==
User = user logging into a web application
Consumer = The Web Application
Service Provider = Users Jabber Server
Use requests access to an xmpp api from the Consumer
Consumer redirects the
Dnia 07-11-2007, Śr o godzinie 19:42 -0700, Peter Saint-Andre pisze:
[NOTE: XEP-0020 is wrong when it shows an IQ-get in Example 1, that
should be an IQ-set -- I think this is a simple typo. For instance
that's what we have in XEP-0095 and XEP-0096.]
We talked about it on jdev, and noticed
On Nov 8, 2007 9:52 AM, Tomasz Sterna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dnia 08-11-2007, Cz o godzinie 00:29 +0100, Fabio Forno pisze:
One of the reasons I tend to use id bosh is the ability of keeping the
session open when the client temporary disconnects
XEP-0198: Stanza Acknowledgements already
Tomasz Sterna wrote:
Dnia 07-11-2007, Śr o godzinie 19:42 -0700, Peter Saint-Andre pisze:
[NOTE: XEP-0020 is wrong when it shows an IQ-get in Example 1, that
should be an IQ-set -- I think this is a simple typo. For instance
that's what we have in XEP-0095 and XEP-0096.]
We talked about it
Tomasz Sterna wrote:
Dnia 07-11-2007, Śr o godzinie 14:47 -0700, Peter Saint-Andre pisze:
It might be cool for pubsub services to offer in-bound publishing via
AtomPub (RFC 5023). Shall we define a discoverable feature for that?
I don't quite get what you mean. ;-)
Ah, sorry, more context
On August 29 I posted to this list about some provisional changes that
Joe Hildebrand and I made to XEP-0115:
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2007-August/016619.html
Some discussion ensued here:
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2007-August/016655.html
On Nov 8, 2007 4:25 AM, Tomasz Sterna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dnia 07-11-2007, Śr o godzinie 15:33 -0800, anders conbere pisze:
Example work flow
==
User = user logging into a web application
Consumer = The Web Application
Service Provider = Users Jabber Server
Use
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
I will post version 1.5pre6 soon
to incorporate the foregoing consensus.
Well soon was rather immediate. :)
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0115-1.5.html
Diff from 1.5pre5:
http://svn.xmpp.org:18080/browse/XMPP/trunk/extensions/xep-0115.xml?r1=1194r2=1362
Perhaps an example use case would be in order
I like to write socialy networked applications, I don't like to write
them for the benefit of a locked in platform (facebook, myspace,
linkedin), and I don't want to have to create my own locked in
network.
So I looked at the jabber network, it
Ah, a reputation system. :)
I think basically we want to send an abuse report -- something more
generic than XEP-0161, since not all that abuses is spam.
What the sending domain does with that abuse report is up to the sending
domain. But when the receiving domain terminates s2s communications
Joe Hildebrand wrote:
On Nov 8, 2007, at 4:12 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
How exactly do 1.3 clients break if in 1.4+ the nodes are things like:
http://code.google.com/p/exodus/#0.9.1
http://psi-im.org/#0.11
Again it's a special URL at the software website. The only potential
problem
On Nov 8, 2007, at 4:24 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Yes it seems a bit funny to have a 'v' attribute:
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2007-August/016680.html
As usual, Rachel is the voice of reason. I don't mind her proposal;
however, I still don't think the algorithm needs
On Nov 8, 2007, at 4:12 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
How exactly do 1.3 clients break if in 1.4+ the nodes are things like:
http://code.google.com/p/exodus/#0.9.1
http://psi-im.org/#0.11
Again it's a special URL at the software website. The only potential
problem is the inclusion of the '#'
A version is only interesting if you know the software that it goes
with.
Unfortunately all we have is a URI, which means for any sane display
I need a
table of URI-software name mappings, and thus I can only display
versions
for software I know about. That seems limiting.
Not really;
However, from an user perspective... what is the interest of
showing different
icon per client.
Imagine that it's a presence-only device, like a phone, for example.
Arguably, this should be a defined value used in the identity element
-- identity category='client' type='presence'
On Thursday 08 November 2007 4:03 pm, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
On Nov 8, 2007, at 4:47 PM, Justin Karneges wrote:
Maybe in addition to Peter's proposed 'v' attribute, we could have
an 'n'
attribute for the name. This should allow for generic display.
Doesn't that come back in the identity
Joe Hildebrand wrote:
On Nov 8, 2007, at 4:24 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Yes it seems a bit funny to have a 'v' attribute:
http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2007-August/016680.html
As usual, Rachel is the voice of reason.
I know! I tried to convince her to run for XMPP
Version 0.18 of XEP-0166 (Jingle) has been released.
Abstract: This document defines a framework for initiating and managing
peer-to-peer multimedia sessions (e.g., voice and video chat) between two
Jabber/XMPP endpoints in a way that is interoperable with existing Internet
standards.
On Nov 8, 2007, at 4:49 PM, Olivier Goffart wrote:
I think they should not use that XEP for that.
Too late.
There is jabber:iq:version for that.
I hope not. That was the whole reason we wrote this XEP in the first
place!
And if we want to avoid sending a jabber:iq:version to each, we
Mailing Lists wrote:
Hi,
I've spotted a trivial typo in
http://www.xmpp.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc3920bis-04.html
section 12.3: accorfdance
Maybe this has been caught by a spellchecker already, but I thought I'd
report anyway. ;-)
The only spellchecker I use is my brain.
What if it was phrased in terms of reputation feedback?
On Nov 8, 2007, at 1:15 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Recently on the jabber.org IM service we found that certain accounts
at
other domains were sending abuusive traffic. Unfortunately we did not
have a way to ask the sending domain to
Olivier Goffart wrote:
Le jeudi 8 novembre 2007, Peter Saint-Andre a écrit :
5. Objections to the Council change in version 1.4 specifying that the
value of the 'node' attribute should be ProductURL#SoftwareVersion.
I think we should not recommend to add the version number in the node at
24 matches
Mail list logo
