XSF Discussion - 2017-12-17

Is there a XML command list for XEPs?

marc, I don’t understand the question

jonasw, commands like <strong>

"commands"

ah

tags

you can read xep.dtd

(well, if you can read DTDs ;))

Yeah, a bit

but that’s the normative reference for things which currently work in XEPs, as everything gets validated against that IIRC

I need a tag to make an indention like a list but without bullet points

I don’t think we have that

why?

Argh :D

Because it would look nice ;)

what are you going to use it for?

To "highlight" something

Hard to describe ;)

would be useful if you could be more specific

there are example blocks for examples which may be useful

Yeah, but it's an URI and not XML

does that matter?

I don’t think that examples necessarily have to be XML

Yeah, but the example block is very big for just a single line :D

maybe just a code block without example?

like I used for the test vectors here: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0390.html#algorithm-example-simple

Hm, somehow it looks strange

Doesn't matter for now :D

jonasw, Can I just copy paste from other XEPs?

what do you want to copy&paste?

citing would be more appropriate in many cases (use &xep1234; for that)

Puh, but this would make reading this XEP very stressful

the issue would be to keep things up-to-date if wording in the referenced xep changes, so I’d discourage that.

I would copy some parts from https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0379.html#link_transmission for example

that is a prime example where citing would be more appropriate ✏

jonasw: I've heard that

Ge0rG, what’dya hear?

jonasw: you criticizing my XEP :P

am I? ✏

I can’t english today.

I can't today.

Ge0rG, what do you think? quoting or copying?

marc: what do you want to present? the returned URL?

Ge0rG, provide information about the landing page

marc: <div class="example"> :P

I think you are confused.

:D

who? me?

yeah

Ge0rG, yes

Ge0rG, the current question is about whether marc shall copy the linked section from your XEP or rather cite it.

Probably you should read the backlog once again :D

I think citing is more appropriate

this isn’t about markup anymore, even though I admit I thought that too at first.

marc: I'm not opposed to you copying my text where it makes sense, but I think it would be better to write "An out-of-band presentation of the xmpp: URI according to XEP-0379 §3.3 [...] Example here: [...]"

I’d not go as far as "according to", but "like for example described in", because it’s not going to be normative

(is it?)

Well, I'll just copy it for now because I also changed some parts

We can remove redundant parts later

Okay?

marc: if you change parts, please PR them against the original

marc: nothing is worse than a slightly deviating copy.

Ge0rG, well, we have to discuss my changes anyway

Ge0rG, so let's do this before I PR something ;)

I agree with Ge0rG

marc: you can PR your new wording against 379 before copy&pasting from it.

especially if the XEPs are going to interop ...

marc: actually, what you just wrote made me change my mind. PLEASE DO NOT COPY&PASTE.

Especially not COPY&PASTE&CHANGE.

Ge0rG, :D

Ge0rG, I would recommend that you state something like "the landing page SHOULD contain the XMPP URI in the form of a QR code" in your XEP

s/recommend/RECOMMEND/? :)

:D

It is possible to reference to a specific section of a XEP?

marc: if you open the link on your mobile device, how is a qr code going to help?

Ge0rG, if _you_ open it on your mobile phone it doesn't help

But if you open it on a desktop client it helps

Or I open it because I generated it and my client doesn't generate QR codes for some reason

desktop client -> desktop e-mail client or something like that

marc: is there an xep that defines qr codes for xmpp?

Ge0rG, just encode the XMPP URI

works like a charm

marc: not what I asked.

Ge0rG, okay: no :P

marc: so you want me to create a precedent?

Ge0rG, I don't know if we need a XEP for it

Ge0rG, you could also ask the other way around: how to use the invitation fpr your mobile device if the invitee opens the invitation on a desktop client and you only have a XMPP URI link

Ge0rG, we could also write a short XEP but I don't know if that's worth the effort

marc: yes, a qr code is just the right thing there. The question is whether the developer of the landing page can make that leap without text in the xep

marc: https://github.com/ge0rg/easy-xmpp-invitation/issues/6

Ge0rG, nice, you should add this idea to the XEP now :D

Ge0rG, It's good that we agree at least on some points :>

jonasw, Ge0rG do you think it is possible to make HTTPS mandatory for the landing page?

marc: yes, but does that need to be written in the XEP?

it sure is possible, the question is whether it is reasonable :)

Ge0rG, if I don't write it in the XEP it is not required for the implementation, is it? :D

It's pretty easy nowdays to deploy HTTPS

Ge0rG, current XEP version: http://projects.zapb.de/tmp/xeps/user-invite.html

Please don't comment on minor issues

Ge0rG, weren't you the guy doing a XEP like this? Or is something else?

marc: it's still missing the two different user stories.

SouL: [xep 0379]

Sigh. I'll never get the bots right.

marc: I would tend to reuse the `preauth` element

Ge0rG, yep, I'm aware of the user stories

Ge0rG, yeah, we have to discuss the URI elements / URI format

Ge0rG, other comments or objections?

marc: `xmpp:inviter@server?;preauth=TOKEN;ibr`

marc: it's a pretty rough state, so I'm not sure what parts I should comment about

Ge0rG, "?;" doesn't make sense

marc: it does, if you want to explicitly say it's an empty action.

Ge0rG, structuring, for example

Ge0rG, no, because you assume that there is an ordering for query elements but that's not the case IMO

marc: if there is no ordering, what's the action?

Ge0rG, an element without value which is _defined_ somewhere as action I would say

marc: `xmpp:inviter@server?preauth=TOKEN;ibr` then

Ge0rG, for example, the "?register" action would make sense for the "account creation" use case

marc: it would be great to have decision trees

Ge0rG, a set of defined actions is good starting point for decision trees, isn't it? :)

marc: for account creation it will be something like `xmpp:invitee@server?register;preauth=TOKEN`

Ge0rG, +1

xmpp://server?register;preauth=TOKEN

oh no

marc: the decisions are, for the inviter: force the user to join my server, or let them just add me?

marc: for the invitee: do I have an xmpp account already?

yes

But it would also be nice the have decision trees for URIs in general to provide the same UX in all clients

marc: this needs to be written down in the XEP, with according recommendations for client behavior

yes

Ge0rG, btw, I would add the possibility to disable mutual roster subscription for account creation

I think it makes sense for the account creation use case

marc: I think you are making this more and more complex

marc: there are many ways to add a user already

Ge0rG, add a user = account creation?

Ge0rG, it doesn't become more complex for the clients

marc: it becomes more complex for the user

Ge0rG, that's an admin thing not end-user

marc: but yeah, it makes sense to add a flag

Ge0rG, so we don't have to care about "UX"

I am worried by the quotes around "UX".

marc: what about "AX"?

Ge0rG, As an admin I like options :p

😁

jonasw, because were're not talking about end-users here

Admins are users as well

Yes that's why I said end-users