Re: [Standards] XEP-0050: Ad-Hoc Commands

2016-10-18 Thread jorge - w
I'm not really proposing altering the existing standard, because it works fine for several tasks. It seems it would be just a matter of scope. I know users writing commands looks weird, but we should consider that they will probably be using different clients at the same time and they would

Re: [Standards] XEP-0050: Ad-Hoc Commands

2016-10-18 Thread Dave Cridland
On 18 October 2016 at 08:11, jorge - w wrote: > I'm just trying to receive feeback from the community, since i have recently > joined it. > Sure - and it's appreciated. > In order to avoid client dependency, any programming should be done at > server side. I already know

Re: [Standards] XEP-0050: Ad-Hoc Commands

2016-10-18 Thread Dave Cridland
On 18 October 2016 at 07:54, jorge - w wrote: > My view is that XEP-0050 is fine as an admin tool, just like XEP-0133. > > But what is fine for admins is not always the same for regular users. That's > why i think there should be a different interface for regular users mostly

Re: [Standards] XEP-0050: Ad-Hoc Commands

2016-10-18 Thread jorge - w
I'm just trying to receive feeback from the community, since i have recently joined it. In order to avoid client dependency, any programming should be done at server side. I already know anything can be coded with no need for a standard, I'm just exposing an idea, not a personal need. El

Re: [Standards] XEP-0050: Ad-Hoc Commands

2016-10-18 Thread Kevin Smith
On 18 Oct 2016, at 07:54, jorge - w wrote: > My view is that XEP-0050 is fine as an admin tool, just like XEP-0133. > > But what is fine for admins is not always the same for regular users. That's > why i think there should be a different interface for regular users mostly

Re: [Standards] XEP-0050: Ad-Hoc Commands

2016-10-18 Thread jorge - w
My view is that XEP-0050 is fine as an admin tool, just like XEP-0133. But what is fine for admins is not always the same for regular users. That's why i think there should be a different interface for regular users mostly aimed to external applications. Users might prefer :app_short_name to

Re: [Standards] XEP-0050: Ad-Hoc Commands

2016-10-17 Thread Dave Cridland
On 17 October 2016 at 12:03, jorge - w wrote: > I'd like to discuss about the scope of XEP-0050. According to Motivation the > objetive is to expand Jabber beyond instant messaging. > However I see few XMPP clients feature command execution. I wonder if > another approach

Re: [Standards] XEP-0050: Ad-Hoc Commands

2016-10-17 Thread jorge - w
But I mean it might add some intuitiveness. I image that for a regular user it would be easier to write a simple sequence of characters in any group of clients he may choose (web, Android, desktop...) rather than looking for command execution (if available) on each of them. For example, if a

Re: [Standards] XEP-0050: Ad-Hoc Commands

2016-10-17 Thread Goffi
Le lundi 17 octobre 2016, 13:03:52 CEST jorge - w a écrit : > I'd like to discuss about the scope of XEP-0050. According to Motivation > the objetive is to > expand Jabber beyond instant messaging. > However I see few XMPP clients feature

[Standards] XEP-0050: Ad-Hoc Commands

2016-10-17 Thread jorge - w
I'd like to discuss about the scope of XEP-0050. According to Motivation the objetive is to expand Jabber beyond instant messaging. However I see few XMPP clients feature command execution. I wonder if another approach could be considered.