Wednesday, May 09, 2012
council@muc.xmpp.org
May
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

[00:07:22] *** Tobias has left the room
[02:31:35] *** Kooda shows as "away"
[06:40:03] *** Kev shows as "online"
[07:12:56] *** Tobias has joined the room
[07:12:58] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[08:03:16] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[08:33:40] *** Tobias has left the room
[10:27:18] *** Tobias has joined the room
[10:27:19] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[11:24:33] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[11:25:35] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[11:55:12] *** Kev shows as "away"
[11:59:23] *** Kev shows as "online"
[13:19:04] *** Tobias has joined the room
[13:19:06] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[13:48:13] *** linuxwolf has joined the room
[13:54:00] *** MattJ has joined the room
[13:55:00] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[13:58:04] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[14:07:11] <Kev> ~1 hour.
[14:10:28] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[14:13:42] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[14:16:50] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[14:18:46] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[14:31:22] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[14:36:22] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[14:43:34] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[14:43:34] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[14:43:37] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[14:46:04] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[14:55:25] *** stpeter has joined the room
[14:55:27] *** ralphm has joined the room
[14:57:16] <linuxwolf> ~5 min
[15:00:07] *stpeter waves
[15:00:56] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[15:01:13] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[15:02:42] <Tobias> hi
[15:02:50] <Kev> It is time.
[15:02:54] <Kev> 1) Roll call
[15:02:57] <Kev> I be here.
[15:02:59] <linuxwolf> presente
[15:03:15] <ralphm> tadaaah
[15:03:22] *Tobias /me2
[15:03:58] <Kev> MattJ: Ping.
[15:04:10] <MattJ> Pong
[15:04:13] <MattJ> Present
[15:05:00] <Kev> http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0068/diff/1.1/vs/1.2rc2
[15:05:08] <Kev> 2) http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0068/diff/1.1/vs/1.2rc2
Accept 1.2
[15:05:09] <Kev> Rather.
[15:05:09] <linuxwolf> +1
[15:05:38] <MattJ> +1
[15:05:52] <Tobias> +1
[15:06:13] <Kev> I'm almost +1.
[15:06:24] <Kev> The example for a new field name seems to be sane.
[15:06:34] <Kev> <field var="x-{http://example.com/pubsub}time_restrictions" type="text-multi"
label="Limit to these time ranges">
[15:06:50] <Kev> That seems reasonable.
[15:07:04] *stpeter looks
[15:07:21] <Kev> But AFAICS from the diff, we're just removing an obligation on people making new values to put x- on them, and I think we should encourage them to namespace themsomehow as bove, instead.
[15:07:47] <Kev> Of course, my paste has the strikout x- as well as the added namespaceish stuff, which doesn't paste into here.
[15:07:51] <ralphm> hehe
[15:08:04] <stpeter> you're talking about http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0068-1.2.html#example-2
[15:08:30] <Kev> I am.
[15:08:43] <Kev> The example seems entirely sane - I'm suggesting we include text to match.
[15:08:59] <linuxwolf> Kev: There's also section 3.3, with SHOULDs (not MUSTs) around what the naming conventions
[15:09:04] <Kev> (Or you tell me there is text to match and I can't see it)
[15:09:20] <Kev> linuxwolf: 3.4, don't you mean?
[15:09:20] <linuxwolf> d'oh
[15:09:22] <linuxwolf> yeah
[15:09:25] <linuxwolf> and it's not enough
[15:09:27] <linuxwolf> maybe
[15:09:28] <stpeter> I'd be fine with recommending Clark notation
[15:09:41] <stpeter> all that 3.4 says is "If the FORM_TYPE is not registered, the field MAY have any name (managed by the namespace owner)."
[15:09:48] <Kev> Right.
[15:09:48] <stpeter> which admittedly is rather weak :)
[15:09:52] <Kev> I think we should namespace it somehow.
[15:09:54] <linuxwolf> I'm still +1 to the current, but would not object to further specificity
[15:10:01] <Kev> Clark notation, as in the example, seems right to me.
[15:10:10] <Kev> Or sensible, at least, I'm not opposed to other sensible options.
[15:10:31] <linuxwolf> We're XML, so Clark notation seems the best fit, IMO
[15:10:37] <ralphm> agreed
[15:10:49] <ralphm> I'm not sure if that need to be a MUST
[15:11:09] <ralphm> but clearly we should at least strongly recommend that custom fields do this
[15:11:17] <linuxwolf> however, I don't want everyone that followed XEP-68 < 1.2 to feel obligated to change their code
[15:11:35] <Kev> I'm happy with MUST be clearly namespaced, SHOULD use Clark notation, legacy implementations MAY use the obsolete x- notation.
[15:12:09] *** linuxwolf shows as "dnd" and his status message is "XSF Council"
[15:12:20] <Kev> Would that suit everyone else?
[15:12:45] <ralphm> I'd be in favor of MUSTing the notation
[15:12:46] <Tobias> fine with me
[15:12:52] <linuxwolf> I think so
[15:13:06] <stpeter> Kev: this is for forms where the FORM_TYPE is registered with the XSF, or also for forms where the FORM_TYPE is unregistered?
[15:13:07] <Kev> ralphm: I'm not opposed to MUST use Clark *except* existing x- implementations.
[15:13:31] <linuxwolf> stpeter: both, no?
[15:13:36] <Kev> stpeter: I think for all forms, because I can non-XSF a form and you can extend it non-XSF.
[15:13:40] <stpeter> Section 3.4 is a bit ambiguous about naming in the context of forms where the FORM_TYPE is registered
[15:14:36] <stpeter> I think we kind of assume that the field "namespace" is inherited from the FORM_TYPE
[15:14:47] <ralphm> stpeter: that
[15:15:01] <Kev> I'm happy with text along the lines of 'extending forms outside your namespace requires...'.
[15:15:13] <linuxwolf> that
[15:15:18] <Kev> I think that's the critical thing. If it's not your form, you have to namespace your changes.
[15:15:25] <stpeter> so why have a FORM_TYPE of "http://example.com/foo" and then field names of {http://example.com/foo}bar" ?
[15:15:28] <ralphm> it is rather unfortunate that we also have these pubsub# and muc# prefixes, but yeah, leaving off {...} assumes the form namespace
[15:15:42] <Kev> stpeter: See above :)
[15:15:46] <stpeter> ralphm: indeed -- I have no idea why we thought that was a good idea :)
[15:16:03] <stpeter> Kev: ok, yes
[15:16:12] <ralphm> so must use clark except for legacy apps using x-
[15:16:17] <stpeter> right
[15:16:22] <ralphm> +1 then
[15:16:34] <stpeter> I will formulate some text and then run it by the list
[15:16:39] <Kev> I suggest that instead of pre-approving rc3, we discuss again next week/week after.
[15:16:50] <Kev> Just because we've discussed a number of approaches and the possibility for miscommunication is high.
[15:16:51] <stpeter> not quite up for wordsmithing the text here :)
[15:16:53] <stpeter> WFM
[15:16:54] <stpeter> right
[15:16:56] <stpeter> agreed
[15:17:05] <Kev> So I think we're done with this.
[15:17:08] <Kev> 3) Date of next meeting.
[15:17:10] <Tobias> yup
[15:17:20] <Kev> I don't believe I can make next week at the normal time.
[15:17:21] <ralphm> +1W
[15:17:29] <Kev> You folks could go on without me, or we can reschedule, or miss a week.
[15:17:47] <ralphm> given the amount of work, skipping a week seems fine
[15:17:55] <Kev> Anyone else?
[15:18:00] <MattJ> wfm
[15:18:03] <Tobias> wfm
[15:18:04] *MattJ is ~50% here
[15:18:06] <linuxwolf> I'm ambivalent (-:
[15:18:30] <Kev> linuxwolf: ambivalent, or disinterested?
[15:18:58] <ralphm> linuxwolf: we can still hang out here next week
[15:19:07] <Kev> Anyway, a fortnight now seems vaguely agreed.
[15:19:13] <Kev> 4) Any other business?
[15:19:22] <linuxwolf> ralphm: (-:
[15:19:28] <linuxwolf> no other business
[15:21:15] <Kev> Right, I think we're done.
[15:21:17] <Kev> Thanks all.
[15:21:20] *Kev bangs the gavel.
[15:21:22] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[15:21:31] <Tobias> thanks
[15:23:46] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[15:27:45] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[15:31:24] <stpeter> ok
[15:31:36] <stpeter> I've provisionally updated 68
[15:31:37] <stpeter> http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0068-1.2.html#approach-fieldnames
[15:34:48] <stpeter> I need to heaad into the office, bbiab
[15:35:04] <stpeter> I'll post to standards@ about the x- changes
[15:42:22] <Kev> Thanks.
[15:43:42] <ralphm> stpeter: I think we should mention that {http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub#subscribe_authorization}pubsub#subscriber_jid is equivalent to pubsub#subscriber_jid
[15:43:57] <ralphm> also, example 168 of XEP-0060 has a typo for that field name
[15:44:33] <ralphm> and example 2 in your draft of 0068 has an incorrect FORM_TYPE
[15:44:37] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[15:44:47] <ralphm> (i.e. it lacks the #subscribe_authorization part)
[15:44:48] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[15:47:43] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[15:49:17] <stpeter> ok, will check those when I get to the office, gotta run!
[15:49:21] *** stpeter has left the room
[15:54:38] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[15:56:36] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being idle"
[15:59:15] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[15:59:18] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[16:06:36] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is "Not available as a result of being idle"
[16:09:55] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[16:21:10] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[16:22:51] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[16:30:41] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[17:06:00] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[17:14:14] *** Kooda shows as "away"
[17:17:28] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being idle"
[17:27:28] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is "Not available as a result of being idle"
[17:33:10] *** Kooda shows as "online"
[17:37:44] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[18:10:51] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being idle"
[18:11:31] *** Kev shows as "away"
[18:13:06] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[18:20:50] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is "Not available as a result of being idle"
[18:23:06] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[18:53:38] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[18:53:41] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[19:42:27] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[19:52:27] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[19:55:12] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[20:08:41] *** Tobias shows as "away" and his status message is "Available"
[20:20:20] *** linuxwolf shows as "away" and his status message is "stuffage"
[20:20:24] *** linuxwolf shows as "online"
[20:26:54] *** Tobias shows as "online" and his status message is "Available"
[20:39:31] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[20:46:29] *** Kev shows as "online"
[20:49:31] *** MattJ shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[20:53:37] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[21:03:38] *** Kev shows as "away"
[21:17:09] *** Kev shows as "online"
[21:27:09] *** Kev shows as "away"
[21:45:15] *** ralphm shows as "online"
[22:18:20] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[22:21:58] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[22:39:58] *** linuxwolf has left the room
[22:51:45] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[22:58:54] *** MattJ shows as "online"
[23:12:18] *** MattJ shows as "away" and his status message is " (Away as a result of being idle more than 5 min)"
[23:18:16] *** Tobias has left the room
[23:19:47] *** ralphm shows as "away" and his status message is "Away as a result of being idle"
[23:22:18] *** MattJ shows as "xa" and his status message is " (Not available as a result of being idle more than 15 min)"
[23:29:47] *** ralphm shows as "xa" and his status message is "Not available as a result of being idle"
[23:31:47] *** MattJ shows as "online"