Old thread alert!
On 10/6/10 8:27 AM, Matthew Wild wrote:
On 6 October 2010 13:41, Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk wrote:
Hi all,
We seem to have a contradiction in XEP-0045 about when to send
status code 100. From 13.4, we get:
Any thoughts?
Personally I think having 100 mark only
On 06/10/10 16:27, Matthew Wild wrote:
Personally I think having 100 mark only non-anonymous makes most
sense. I think it's given that when you join a room the admins will be
able to see your JID, there's really no such thing as
fully-anonymous, and I've never seen that functionality used.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Matthew Wild mwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 October 2010 13:41, Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk wrote:
Hi all,
We seem to have a contradiction in XEP-0045 about when to send
status code 100. From 13.4, we get:
Any thoughts?
Personally I think having 100
On 6 October 2010 13:41, Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk wrote:
Hi all,
We seem to have a contradiction in XEP-0045 about when to send
status code 100. From 13.4, we get:
Any thoughts?
Personally I think having 100 mark only non-anonymous makes most
sense. I think it's given that when you
On 2010-10-06 07:27, Matthew Wild wrote:
Personally I think having 100 mark only non-anonymous makes most
sense.
+1 to everything Matthew said.
~Paul
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
