On Jun 3, 2013, at 2:22 PM, Peter Waher <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello > > 1) Regarding: > >> 3) ProtoXEP: Data Forms - Color Field Type < >> http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/color-parameter.html > >> Accept as Experimental? >> >> RM, TM, MW have no objections. MM has objections (prefixing of XEP-0122 >> elements). Author(s) to submit a revision correcting XEP-0122 use. >> KS have one fortnight to note objections. > > I'm unsure what you mean by this. Could you provide an example or reference > into the XEP-0122 that clarifies this point? > > In XEP-0122 I read: "The use of namespace prefixes is RECOMMENDED for large > forms, to reduce the data size." > > Why do you feel this is not done in this XEP? > I apologize for my misreadings, and lift my objections. > 2) Regarding the HTTP over XMPP XEP posted earlier. I have still a couple of > questions posted to the council and the standards list, that have not been > answered. Could you please take a look at my latest comments again so that I > know how to proceed? While I still have some concerns about the non-IBB chunked model, that is not holding it up. The biggest outstanding issues are the unclear copyright ownership around the SOAP examples. The appear to be from W3Schools, but it is unclear if you have rights to place them into a XEP, which then requires you to assign those rights to the XSF. We cannot accept this proto-XEP until the copyright issues are resolved. - m&m Matthew A. Miller < http://goo.gl/LK55L >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
