[Telepathy] ejabberd server component with empathy
paddy.carman at gmail.com
Tue Feb 8 09:14:18 PST 2011
Thanks for your reply. It my opinion, Gabble should not limit such
JIDs, especially if the standard allows it. User experiences should be
handled by Empathy.
Is there any way around this Gabble issue? I'm using my own python-telepathy
based XMPP client.
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Will Thompson <will.thompson at collabora.co.uk
> On 08/02/11 15:38, mikhail.zabaluev at nokia.com wrote:
>> Why? service.example.com should be as valid a JID as any other, no?
> I think the rationale is to avoid confusing errors for users who enter
> "foo.bar", expecting to talk to "foo.bar at gmail.com", or add them to their
> I notice that Empathy just silently ignores the failing channel request,
> though. Excitingly, Gabble doesn't seem to emit a failed delivery report if
> I try to send messages to "lol at lol.whut", despite receiving an error on
> the wire, because Prosody doesn't include the <body/> element we tried to
> send in the error it sends back. (A send error/delivery report is emitted
> when I try this via ejabberd, which includes <body/>.) I've filed <
> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34039> for this isue.
> I wonder whether the rationale is basically wrong, and we should allow it,
> and ensure that we report errors properly and possibly include hints in the
> UI as to what contact IDs should look like on each network. (For instance,
> if the CM says something like “domain not found”, hint “did you mean
> lol.whut at gmail.com?”.)
> Either that, or we want a way—Addressing? ;-)—to explicitly label “this is
> a server-like JID”.
> telepathy mailing list
> telepathy at lists.freedesktop.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the telepathy