Ancient thread alert!
On 8/24/10 3:31 PM, Marcus Lundblad wrote:
A thought:
In 0260 there is a sid attribute on the transport element.
And in 0065 SID is used to calculate the authentication hash.
When using S5B with Jingle and 0260, should the sid of the Jingle
session be used, or
Old thread alert!
On 11/2/10 3:16 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
I have vague memories of intending to say this before, so apologies if
it's a resend.
In 45, there's the following block of text:
Discussion history messages MUST be stamped with Delayed Delivery
[11] information qualified by the
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
Following the MUC theme, we had a little discussion today in jabber@.
Something I hadn't really noticed before is that the actor element
in MUC (the one that tells you who performed an action like a kick or
a ban) specifies that you must use the bare JID of the actor.
This seems a really strange
On Apr 5, 2011, at 23:24, Matthew Wild mwi...@gmail.com wrote:
The only downside to this is backwards-compatibility. I haven't tested
any, but it might upset some clients to see an actor with no 'jid'.
Why can't the JID be no more than the room JID, and rely on existing mechanisms
to map that
On 6 April 2011 04:45, Brian Cully bcu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 5, 2011, at 23:24, Matthew Wild mwi...@gmail.com wrote:
The only downside to this is backwards-compatibility. I haven't tested
any, but it might upset some clients to see an actor with no 'jid'.
Why can't the JID be no more
