Wednesday, October 05, 2011
council@muc.xmpp.org
October
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
          1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
           
XMPP Council Room | https://xmpp.org/about/xmpp-standards-foundation#council | Room logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/ | https://trello.com/b/ww7zWMlI/xmpp-council-agenda

[06:00:10] *** Kev has joined the room
[06:00:11] *** Kev shows as "online"
[11:22:12] *** Neustradamus has left the room
[11:22:47] *** Neustradamus has joined the room
[12:12:30] *** Kev has left the room
[12:13:33] *** Kev has joined the room
[12:13:35] *** Kev shows as "online"
[14:04:47] *** stpeter has joined the room
[14:08:30] *** Neustradamus shows as "away"
[14:23:49] <Kev> I'm going to pop out for a couple of minutes. Should be back for the meeting in 40mins, but if I'm a couple of minutes late...apologies.
[14:25:17] <stpeter> ok, no worries
[14:31:21] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[14:31:21] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[14:31:21] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[14:34:44] *** Neustradamus has left the room
[14:35:49] *** Neustradamus has joined the room
[14:36:45] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[14:41:38] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[14:41:48] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "wandered off..."
[14:43:03] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[14:45:25] <linuxwolf> pong?
[14:46:20] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[14:47:01] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[14:47:14] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[14:47:22] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[14:47:29] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[14:47:34] <linuxwolf> testing
[14:48:15] <linuxwolf> this is going to be interesting …
[14:48:20] <linuxwolf> the power is on and off at home today
[14:48:24] <linuxwolf> so I might not be able to stay in this meeting
[14:52:00] *** Lance Stout has joined the room
[14:52:00] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[14:55:40] <Kev> pong
[14:55:42] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[14:56:16] <linuxwolf> ping?
[14:57:07] <Kev> A neutrino walks into a bar.
[14:57:43] <linuxwolf> "No charge"
[14:58:22] <stpeter> An infinite number of mathematicians walk into a bar.
[14:58:25] <linuxwolf> so, I'm getting solar panels installed today…was supposed to be done yesterday
[14:58:37] *** MattJ has joined the room
[14:58:56] <linuxwolf> so if I drop, it's because they're switching from evil grid-based electricity to good sun-based electricity
[14:59:15] <stpeter> but at least you're saving the planet!
[14:59:17] <Kev> Remind me where the energy for the grid-based electricity comes from :)
[14:59:23] <linuxwolf> coal
[14:59:25] <Kev> It's some big glowing thing somewhere.
[14:59:31] <Kev> But I'm sure it must be evil :D
[14:59:50] <linuxwolf> mostly I don't want another rate hike
[15:00:13] <linuxwolf> "since you're doing such a good job conserving energy, we're rewarding you with a higher rate"
[15:00:43] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[15:02:38] <linuxwolf> ok, quick run for caffeine … should be back in two minutes
[15:03:03] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[15:04:24] <stpeter> Ralph appears to be offline
[15:04:33] <Kev> And it's 4pm.
[15:04:45] <stpeter> correction, he's just away
[15:04:49] <Kev> So let's start.
[15:05:02] <Kev> 1) Roll call.
[15:05:04] <Kev> I'm here.
[15:05:46] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[15:06:02] <Kev> MattJ? linuxwolf?
[15:06:12] <MattJ> Present
[15:07:34] <stpeter> clearly linuxwolf hasn't found coffee yet
[15:07:58] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[15:08:01] <linuxwolf> ugh
[15:08:16] <linuxwolf> now I'm here
[15:08:26] <Kev> Righty.
[15:08:46] <Kev> 2) 296.
[15:09:03] *** linuxwolf shows as "dnd" and his status message is "XSF Council Meeting"
[15:09:05] <Kev> linuxwolf: do you want to call for a vote on this, or leave it in Last Call for a while?
[15:09:12] <Kev> I still think that this breaks caps.
[15:10:13] <linuxwolf> it can stay in LC awhile longer
[15:10:24] <linuxwolf> can you explain how it break capabilities
[15:10:50] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[15:10:58] <Kev> Whenever you unlock a chat, you no longer have caps available to you for the current chat.
[15:11:12] <Kev> So, for example, CSN will stop working every time you unbind the chat.
[15:12:18] <Kev> Currently 296 recommends/mandates unlocking in situations where it's completely redundant (only one resource available, but you still unbind because it changed status) - but beyond this all this unbinding means you break caps far more often than you need to.
[15:12:52] <linuxwolf> I'll think about language for single resource
[15:13:10] <linuxwolf> I will tell you that when multiple clients are in place, this is working very wonderfully
[15:13:11] <Kev> I take the point of there being some semi-broken clients out there on board as an argument for always unlocking on presence of anything anywhere, but the consequences of this for well-behaved clients (and this *is* a list of best practise, rather than how to work around dodgy clients and gateways) are negative.
[15:13:38] <Kev> *practice
[15:13:39] <linuxwolf> you're assuming that a change availability MUST mean a change in <show/>
[15:14:35] <Kev> I'm assuming that's the typical case, yes.
[15:14:47] <Kev> Without statistics to the contrary, I think it's probably true, too.
[15:14:50] <linuxwolf> I don't think that's a vaild assumption
[15:14:50] *** Astro has joined the room
[15:14:59] *** stpeter shows as "dnd" and his status message is "in a meeting"
[15:15:19] <linuxwolf> it's not a valid assumption on the networks I've worked with … some of them being buggy clients but a lot of them having legitimate reasons for it
[15:15:25] <stpeter> it's not infrequent that I change from dnd "in a meeting" to dnd "on a conference call" or whatever
[15:15:34] <Kev> linuxwolf: Networks on the Internet?
[15:15:36] <linuxwolf> still available but in a meeting
[15:15:52] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[15:15:53] <Kev> stpeter: These are the same status, though - you're still DND.
[15:16:05] <stpeter> different status, same show
[15:16:22] <Kev> Right, I didn't mean same <status/>
[15:16:24] *** Zash has joined the room
[15:16:24] *** Zash shows as "online"
[15:16:30] <Kev> You are still saying "Don't disturb me".
[15:16:51] <Kev> With the proposed unlocking scheme, you start getting messages because of this change, which doesn't seem right at all.
[15:16:52] <linuxwolf> when I had more capable clients, I would switch priorities and statuses, but not <show/>
[15:17:15] <stpeter> Kev: clearly I need to review it more closely
[15:17:16] <linuxwolf> and there are clients that allow for that, even if the user doesn't really realize it
[15:17:17] <Kev> linuxwolf: A switch of priority is a good reason to unlock, I think.
[15:17:26] <linuxwolf> it's a crucial reason to unlock
[15:17:42] <linuxwolf> I think it's also important to unlock if you get a new caps hash
[15:17:50] <Kev> I'll buy that, too.
[15:17:53] <linuxwolf> but instead of adding a million special cases, we tried this
[15:18:00] <linuxwolf> it seems to be working very well
[15:18:20] <linuxwolf> for about 6 years now between all the clients I've had influence with (-:
[15:18:35] <Kev> I'm not arguing that there's no deployments, especially when using corporate gateways potentially, where the proposed scheme works well.
[15:18:47] <Kev> I don't think it's the right thing for the Internet, though.
[15:18:58] <linuxwolf> the internet is not the majority of users
[15:19:03] <linuxwolf> not by a long long shot
[15:19:16] *** Tobias has joined the room
[15:19:16] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[15:19:17] <linuxwolf> if we're going to write our protocols for a minority, we're going to get into trouble
[15:19:29] <MattJ> I wouldn't call the internet a minority either :)
[15:19:39] <linuxwolf> of XMPP users, it most certainly is
[15:19:55] <MattJ> I'm quiet because I'm not sure what the correct solution is... resource locking in general feels more like a hack to me daily
[15:19:57] <linuxwolf> *most* of us are on some sort of private or corporate service
[15:20:31] <linuxwolf> MattJ: While I can see that, I'm not sure how else we get there
[15:20:37] <MattJ> When I say I'm not sure what the correct solution is, I suggest there might not be one... we need to decide what we're designing for and choose the best option possible
[15:20:41] <linuxwolf> SIMPLE+MSRP seems worse to me (-:
[15:20:49] <MattJ> Well you're clearly using this in production, and you're saying this logic works
[15:20:57] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[15:21:00] <linuxwolf> yes
[15:21:00] <Kev> linuxwolf: If you're writing this XEP for non-federating deployments, then call it Best Practices for Internal Corporate Resource Locking or something, and I don't have issue with it, and we can come up with another one for the public network.
[15:21:10] <linuxwolf> Kev: this is federating
[15:21:21] <MattJ> I agree with Kev though that e.g. a repeated <presence/> shouldn't really cause an unlock
[15:21:41] <stpeter> I think it's difficult to say where the majority of deployment occurs.....
[15:21:42] <linuxwolf> for the most part, presence changes don't happen that often for a given indivdual
[15:22:08] <stpeter> perhaps do we need to do a bit of research here?
[15:22:43] <Kev> Or just listing the assumptions and requirements in the protoXEP as a start.
[15:23:07] <linuxwolf> I can add a list of assumptions
[15:23:22] <Kev> Ok, moving on then.
[15:23:31] <Kev> 3) Account management.
[15:23:49] <Kev> Are we satisfied with the state of community feedback to the point that we can now reject/accept it?
[15:24:03] <linuxwolf> in it's current form, I think so
[15:24:11] <Kev> In the weeks the discussion's been open, I've yet to see anyone argue in favour of it, so if we're doing this now I'm -1.
[15:24:24] <linuxwolf> although
[15:24:29] *stpeter will read 296 again
[15:24:37] <linuxwolf> Jehan did just state he'd been out of contact, so was not able to respond
[15:24:40] <Kev> Yes.
[15:24:57] <Kev> Although ideally I'd like to see someone other than the author think it's a good idea to publish it.
[15:25:06] <Kev> But I'm happy to put this off for another week.
[15:25:08] <MattJ> Yes, I don't see his reply yet
[15:25:11] <linuxwolf> so, calling the linuxwolf from a minute ago a moron, we might want to give him a few days to respond
[15:26:00] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[15:26:16] <Kev> 4) Server Dialback - the way forward.
[15:26:18] <MattJ> I'm in favour of that
[15:26:30] <MattJ> Quite an agenda today :)
[15:26:35] <linuxwolf> yes
[15:26:35] <stpeter> :P
[15:26:56] <Kev> stpeter: Over to you.
[15:27:08] <stpeter> so I updated XEP-0220 to incorporate a few bug reports
[15:27:23] <stpeter> have not heard from fippo since then, although it took me months to reply to him the last time!
[15:27:50] <stpeter> it might make sense to hold another Last Call
[15:27:55] <Kev> I think the way forward is for Peter to put out a new version 220, start a new LC and go from there. If Fippo, or any other authors, think there are bugs in the spec, they can also propose a new version (or a rollback), and we can compare in LC.
[15:28:04] <stpeter> right
[15:28:05] <linuxwolf> /nod
[15:28:06] <stpeter> WFM
[15:28:23] <Kev> Ok.
[15:28:33] <Kev> 5) 234.
[15:28:35] <MattJ> Me too
[15:28:58] <linuxwolf> we need to push on that
[15:29:08] <linuxwolf> or maybe the next council does (-:
[15:29:09] <stpeter> so, about 234, I think the primary thing is the hashes spec http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0300.html
[15:29:30] <stpeter> Tobias and others might have feedback more directly related to 234
[15:29:36] <Kev> I think we can probably LC 300 if we want to.
[15:29:41] <Kev> It's fairly simple.
[15:29:41] <stpeter> but we can't advance 234 until we advance 300
[15:29:47] <linuxwolf> /nod to both
[15:29:58] <stpeter> one thought: we might want to look at how 300 would slot into other extensions
[15:30:13] <Kev> stpeter: Is that a prerequisite to advancing 300?
[15:30:17] <stpeter> so that we can figure out if it's generic enough
[15:30:46] <stpeter> Kev: well, I'd hate to advance it while thinking that it solves all problems when it solves only the file transfer problem
[15:30:55] <Kev> Ok.
[15:31:02] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[15:31:11] <stpeter> one concern I have is that existing protocols might use hashes as attributes, not elements
[15:31:14] <MattJ> I seem to remember a post where you listed the possible other protocols that could use it
[15:31:17] <stpeter> so we'd need to see how to retrofit
[15:31:28] <stpeter> MattJ: probably, I need need to go back and look at those
[15:31:34] <stpeter> but we could do that during LC
[15:31:41] <linuxwolf> /nod
[15:31:53] <stpeter> I just wanted to raise the issue so we're thinking about it
[15:32:03] <linuxwolf> It's hard to apply multiple hashes in an attribute though (-:
[15:32:04] <stpeter> that's all from me
[15:32:09] <stpeter> linuxwolf: right :)
[15:32:26] <Kev> Ok then. So I see this as nothing for Council to do but wait for Peter to look at updating other XEPs for 300.
[15:32:53] <Kev> 6) -0009
[15:33:03] <Kev> Not something I ever expected to discuss in a Council meeting.
[15:33:04] <stpeter> Kev: sure
[15:33:08] <stpeter> no?
[15:33:25] <Kev> I thought it was a) dead and b) ancient :)
[15:33:27] <stpeter> it would require a new version to correct that error
[15:33:29] <linuxwolf> (-:
[15:33:30] <stpeter> oh
[15:33:31] <stpeter> heh
[15:33:41] <stpeter> well, periodically we receive reports of people using it
[15:33:42] <MattJ> Wait, what's up with 0009? Have I missed a mail?
[15:33:51] <stpeter> MattJ: yes, you have
[15:33:52] <Kev> [Standards] Regarding capitalization of base64 type in Jabber-RPC (XEP-0009)
[15:33:53] <linuxwolf> <base64/> vs <Base64/>
[15:33:59] <MattJ> Ah, that one!
[15:34:02] <stpeter> right
[15:34:13] <MattJ> Sorry, I remember now... forgot which spec was under discussion in that thread :)
[15:34:17] <Kev> So we should just update -9 to use the right caps, shouldn't we?
[15:34:25] <stpeter> I think so
[15:34:33] <linuxwolf> yeah
[15:34:33] <Kev> Although...
[15:34:38] <stpeter> I think the book from which we borrowed the XML schema is simply wrong
[15:34:43] <Kev> It's final. This is an incompatible change.
[15:34:46] <stpeter> I am happy to check with Dave Winer
[15:34:49] <Kev> So I guess we shouldn't and should live with the wart.
[15:34:55] <linuxwolf> /sigh
[15:35:06] <linuxwolf> probably
[15:35:06] <MattJ> Time for XMPP-RPC? :)
[15:35:28] <linuxwolf> we have that with XEP-0004 d-:
[15:35:32] <linuxwolf> /ducks
[15:35:46] <Kev> We *could* update -9 with a new namespace and a note saying that in the new namespace you use the right case but everything else is identical.
[15:35:56] <linuxwolf> I'm not convinced we should change −0009, personally
[15:36:05] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[15:36:17] <linuxwolf> if we change it, it's to add language that we acknowledge our fallibilities
[15:36:17] <stpeter> we might want to at least document the wart
[15:36:24] <linuxwolf> right
[15:36:26] <Kev> Yes.
[15:36:33] <MattJ> OTOH, it's just a schema issue, right?
[15:36:46] <linuxwolf> "just"
[15:37:02] <MattJ> Well, we've typically declared our schemas as informational only
[15:37:21] <Kev> MattJ: Right, but unfortunately the schema is the only content of xep9.
[15:37:32] <stpeter> heh
[15:37:33] <Kev> So there's no text that contradicts the schema or anything.
[15:37:35] <stpeter> well
[15:37:35] <MattJ> So this could be construed as an editorial issue... perhaps ;)
[15:37:48] <stpeter> the spec says:

There is no official XML schema for XML-RPC. The main body
of this schema has been borrowed from an unofficial schema
representation contained in the book "Processing XML With
Java" by Elliotte Rusty Harold
[15:38:21] <stpeter> I would expect existing XML-RPC libraries to use <base64/>
[15:38:30] <stpeter> so I think further research might be useful
[15:38:30] <Kev> Right.
[15:38:55] <Kev> So is the right/easy thing to do to copy/paste xep9 into xep3xx, change that one thing plus the namespace, and obsolete xep9?
[15:39:00] <MattJ> +1 to research, what actually breaks if we change it is what counts
[15:39:09] <stpeter> nod
[15:39:13] <linuxwolf> +1 to research
[15:39:22] <Kev> Asking people who've implemented what happens if we change it is fine by me.
[15:39:32] <Kev> Ok.
[15:39:42] <Kev> 7) Next date.
[15:40:00] <linuxwolf> SBTSBC works for me
[15:40:02] <Kev> Next week's going to be somewhere between impossible and P(0) for me, i think.
[15:40:05] <stpeter> http://groovy.codehaus.org/Groovy+Jabber-RPC and all that
[15:40:11] <linuxwolf> or not (-:
[15:40:12] <stpeter> I will be offline next week
[15:40:43] <Kev> Council *can* have a meeting without me if they want, but it's being a bit optimistic expecting quorum :)
[15:40:49] *MattJ is calculating dates
[15:41:03] <linuxwolf> so … is this the last meeting this term?
[15:41:08] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[15:41:12] <stpeter> hmm
[15:41:15] <stpeter> possibly, yes
[15:41:18] <MattJ> I can do next week, the week after is hard for me
[15:41:27] <MattJ> probably
[15:41:36] <Kev> Next term starts 25th, IIRC
[15:41:37] <linuxwolf> anytime in Oct works for me
[15:41:40] <stpeter> October 19 would be within this term
[15:42:10] <linuxwolf> 10/12 is impossible for Kev, and 10/19 is hard for MattJ
[15:42:53] <linuxwolf> assuming elections are the week of 10/23, that would make this meeting the last
[15:42:56] <Kev> I'm working, but I'm in the office and there are only a few hours everyone will be there.
[15:44:05] <MattJ> Maybe different days for next week could work?
[15:44:16] <MattJ> We can always pick one on list if we need to discuss something
[15:44:22] <linuxwolf> I'm open to any day but Tuesday
[15:44:35] <Kev> Well, I'm in the office all week next week, but can probably sort something out on Tuesday... :)
[15:44:58] <Kev> Monday, maybe, at a pinch, but it'd be hard.
[15:45:14] <linuxwolf> Tuesday is impossible for me, unless it's after 13:00 MDT
[15:45:27] <linuxwolf> I have a sprint planning meeting, and they go about 4 hours
[15:45:28] <Kev> We could try Monday or Tuesday of the week of the 25th.
[15:45:35] <Kev> Just before term ends.
[15:45:40] <Kev> Assuming we have anything to discuss, of course.
[15:46:09] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[15:46:16] <stpeter> http://search.cpan.org/~qmacro/Jabber-RPC-0.01/lib/Jabber/RPC.pm uses http://search.cpan.org/~rtfirefly/Frontier-RPC-0.07b4p1/lib/Frontier/RPC2.pm and that has <base64>
[15:46:19] <linuxwolf> let's see where we're at on Friday, and go from there
[15:46:27] <stpeter> just FYI :)
[15:46:38] <MattJ> Yay
[15:46:52] <stpeter> and Fronter::RPC2 is probably the reference implementation
[15:46:55] <Kev> stpeter: So maybe no-one implements the XEP and we should fix it.
[15:46:57] <Kev> Anyway.
[15:47:01] <Kev> We're way gone tolerance now.
[15:47:05] <stpeter> right
[15:47:05] <linuxwolf> (-:
[15:47:06] <MattJ> Heh
[15:47:07] <stpeter> I'll do more research
[15:47:09] <MattJ> Kev is going to explode
[15:47:16] <Kev> Shall we call for a meeting onlist if it turns out we have something to discuss, but otherwise assume this was the last meeting?
[15:47:24] <linuxwolf> that's what I was suggesting (-:
[15:47:26] <stpeter> yes
[15:47:27] <MattJ> +1
[15:47:28] <Kev> 8) AOB
[15:47:34] <Kev> And risk my wrath :p
[15:48:01] <Kev> No?
[15:48:02] <Kev> Jolly good :)
[15:48:05] <Kev> Thanks all.
[15:48:08] *Kev bangs the gavel.
[15:48:14] <MattJ> Wait!
[15:48:18] <MattJ> I had an AOB for 17 minutes!
[15:48:34] <MattJ> Just to see what would happen
[15:48:56] *stpeter watches Kev press the Smite button on his keyboard
[15:48:57] <linuxwolf> I've already blown off one meeting
[15:49:09] *linuxwolf considers slapping MattJ with a dead trout
[15:49:13] <Kev> I hope they enjoyed that.
[15:49:31] <linuxwolf> I'll find out in about 30 seconds (-:
[15:49:44] <linuxwolf> it's at 9:30 MDT
[15:49:53] <Kev> We seem to be short of a MattJ on the Council applications at the moment.
[15:49:59] <MattJ> Yes...
[15:50:05] <MattJ> I'll write it
[15:50:10] <Kev> Jolly good.
[15:50:12] <linuxwolf> you have until Sunday
[15:50:19] <MattJ> Oh, that's ok then
[15:50:22] <MattJ> I'll write it on Sunday
[15:50:34] <MattJ> I'm useless at writing about myself
[15:50:43] <linuxwolf> dude
[15:50:53] <linuxwolf> 1) find last year's page
[15:50:55] <linuxwolf> 2) copy
[15:50:56] <MattJ> :D
[15:50:58] <linuxwolf> 3) paste
[15:51:07] <linuxwolf> (-:
[15:51:13] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[15:51:38] <linuxwolf> 4) minor edits for changes in priorities
[15:51:42] <linuxwolf> DONE
[15:51:53] <MattJ> The wiki looks very smart, I rarely go to the front page
[15:51:59] <stpeter> http://svn.python.org/projects/python/trunk/Lib/xmlrpclib.py has <base64>
[15:52:09] <MattJ> We're winning
[15:52:29] <linuxwolf> no, we're losing (-:
[15:52:31] <stpeter> I'll keep pasting data points here
[15:52:44] *linuxwolf digs up JSO
[15:52:44] <MattJ> linuxwolf, I'm still in favour of changing the schema
[15:52:47] <MattJ> It's 1 byte!
[15:53:00] *stpeter is of the opinion that this is a schema correction and the schema was always informative anyway
[15:53:05] <linuxwolf> I know there's a few people using it for PRC
[15:53:07] <linuxwolf> RPC even
[15:53:08] <MattJ> Me too
[15:53:17] <linuxwolf> (-:
[15:53:37] <Kev> In this situation I'm not opposed to correcting the XEP.
[15:53:55] <Zash> case is 1 bit diff in ASCII
[15:54:12] <MattJ> Update the schema with a note that the update was made to correct the schema and reflect reality
[15:54:25] <linuxwolf> I use UTF-32, you insensitive clods
[15:54:33] <linuxwolf> (which is also a 1-bit difference, yes)
[15:56:15] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[15:57:34] <linuxwolf> I starting to accept a schema change, as long as we add some text about what it used to be
[15:57:54] <linuxwolf> and that such text is not only found in the Revision History!
[15:58:26] <stpeter> for sure
[16:01:17] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[16:01:35] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[16:02:36] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[16:06:20] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[16:07:25] <stpeter> http://ditchnet.org/xmlrpc/ has <base64>
[16:07:44] <Kev> Ok, Jury's in, then.
[16:07:51] <stpeter> the qxmpp library seems to have <base64>
[16:09:54] <stpeter> http://www.ntecs.de/ruby/xmlrpc4r/ has <base64>
[16:10:00] <MattJ> http://louizatakk.fedorapeople.org/sleekxmpp-1.0-Beta2-0/sleekxmpp/plugins/xep_0009.py
[16:10:02] <Lance Stout> SleekXMPP uses Base64, but I can change that
[16:10:03] <MattJ> Base64
[16:10:08] <MattJ> Lance Stout, nice :)
[16:11:12] <stpeter> http://hg.python.org/cpython/file/2.7/Lib/xmlrpclib.py has <base64>
[16:11:23] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[16:11:33] <stpeter> I might be finding repeats at this point....
[16:12:09] <stpeter> all this because someone pressed the shift key a little too long
[16:12:20] <MattJ> Heh
[16:15:02] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[16:15:46] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[16:16:21] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[16:16:26] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[16:16:36] <linuxwolf> and it's the only one that's capitalized, too
[16:16:40] <linuxwolf> that's even funnier
[16:17:13] <stpeter> which one?
[16:17:51] <linuxwolf> Base64
[16:18:01] <stpeter> oh
[16:18:01] <stpeter> yeah
[16:19:48] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[16:21:15] <stpeter> the xmppframework libraryhas <base64> .... http://code.google.com/p/xmppframework/source/browse/Extensions/XEP-0009/XMPPIQ+JabberRPC.m?spec=svnb6dfb5e2b007bb59043f82a7156a3710e4bbcb13&r=b6dfb5e2b007bb59043f82a7156a3710e4bbcb13
[16:21:28] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[16:26:31] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[16:29:48] *** MattJ shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[16:31:34] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[16:36:36] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[16:41:39] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[16:46:43] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[16:51:45] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[16:56:50] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[17:01:53] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[17:06:55] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[17:11:56] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[17:13:28] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[17:16:59] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[17:21:27] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[17:22:02] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[17:22:07] *** Astro has left the room
[17:25:15] *** Zash has left the room
[17:27:05] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[17:32:07] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[17:37:10] *** Lance Stout shows as "online"
[17:37:41] *** Lance Stout has left the room
[17:46:53] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[18:09:50] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[18:21:46] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[18:24:14] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "lunch"
[18:55:07] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[19:03:41] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[19:12:06] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[19:41:24] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[19:44:05] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[20:00:08] *** stpeter shows as "away" and his status message is "bbiab"
[20:06:28] *** Astro has joined the room
[20:20:55] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[20:20:56] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[20:20:58] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[20:33:29] *** stpeter shows as "online"
[20:35:38] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[20:44:32] *** Tobias has joined the room
[20:44:34] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[20:48:40] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[20:51:21] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[21:20:33] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[21:25:40] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[21:28:33] *** Neustradamus shows as "away"
[21:30:53] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[21:49:46] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[22:00:55] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[22:03:00] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[22:14:19] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[22:24:19] *** MattJ shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[22:44:01] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[22:44:33] *** Tobias has left the room
[22:58:31] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[23:00:53] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[23:46:46] *** Astro has left the room