XSF Discussion - 2019-04-02


  1. pep.

    Can I have a quick show of hands for people who plan to go to CCCamp this year?

  2. pep.

    (ftr, not https://www.cccamp.org/)

  3. Guus

    As that's in the US, you might want to re-ask when the locals have had time to wake up. šŸ˜‰

  4. pep.

    What is in the us?

  5. jonasā€™

    confusion!:)

  6. Guus

    oh, sorry

  7. pep.

    CCCamp is in Germany

  8. Guus

    _not_ the link that you provided.

  9. Guus

    If I see a link, I click on it.

  10. jonasā€™

    Guus, thatā€™s a vulnerability

  11. Guus

    I know.

  12. Guus

    I'm vulnerable.

  13. pep.

    https://www.flickr.com/groups/cccamp2015/pool/page1 fwiw :)

  14. pep.

    jonasā€™, when it's not your client doing it automatically..

  15. Guus

    Yeah, now I'm not gonna click anything anymore, obviously! šŸ˜ƒ

  16. pep.

    *cough* http upload *cough*

  17. Dele Olajide wonders if there is an XEP for URL previews, images and text summaries in chat conversations

  18. Ge0rG

    Message Attaching comes to mind

  19. pep.

    SIMS?

  20. Zash

    SIMS is for more file transfer like things

  21. pep.

    Ah, I was thinking Dele Olajide was referring to my mention of http upload

  22. pep.

    Which is very much file transfer :)

  23. jonasā€™

    Dele Olajide, I started to think about stuff like that, and how to possibly outsource that task to the server while at it

  24. jonasā€™

    I havenā€™t gotten much beyond the stage of thinking though

  25. Dele Olajide

    Not httpfileupload. Just the ability to support the open graph protocol server-side and then send the preview data inbound on the XMPP conversation

  26. jonasā€™

    https://github.com/jabbercat/jabbercat/issues/102

  27. jonasā€™

    Dele Olajide, ^

  28. Kev

    Dele Olajide: You'd do that with references.

  29. Kev

    So you can send the first message through ok, then the server could do the opengraph lookup, and send a reference with the OG data. I/someone should probabyl spec that.

  30. Kev

    And also spec how to use local-IDs in references, while we wait for a sensible solution to global ids.

  31. Zash

    Or a bot. Or the sending client could do it.

  32. Kev

    Zash: Yes, any entity could send the additional data.

  33. jonasā€™

    the question here is not so much how to attach the info to the message, but how to transfer the info, I think

  34. Dele Olajide

    P >Kev: someone should probabyl spec that. That is the XEP I am looking for šŸ™‚

  35. Ge0rG

    XHTML-IM!

  36. Kev

    So this needs a References payload containing OG data, basically?

  37. jonasā€™

    Kev, basically, if "og data" was in general a sensible representation of that type of data.

  38. neshtaxmpp

    .

  39. jonasā€™

    and if references had a way to work with non-body stuff

  40. jonasā€™

    ā€”

  41. Kev

    jonasā€™: Is it not?

  42. jonasā€™

    Kev, whenever I try to extract og data, I find a new way how they represent e.g. an associated image

  43. Kev

    Is that people not using OG literally, or a problem within OG?

  44. jonasā€™

    Iā€™m not sure

  45. Kev

    (Genuine question, I've not played with Og in any significant way)

  46. jonasā€™

    Iā€™d have to go back to look at things

  47. jonasā€™

    also, OG is often not as complete as one would wish it to be, because the site typically wants people to click through

  48. jonasā€™

    which is why foorl (my URL resolver bot) has special code for some pages (twitter) where it overrides the OG readout with screen scraping of the twitter HTML to make it more useful

  49. Zash

    I once joked about needing to repeat HTML metadata 5 times for open graph and similar things.

  50. jonasā€™

    that sounds realistic

  51. Zash

    I apparently didn't exagerate enough :(

  52. Zash

    I think I found a couple more ways after that :(

  53. Kev

    Fundamentally, there's two questions, I think. One is whether OG is reliable for extracting stuff from pages, and the other is whether it's a sensible mapping to use in XMPP for sending these type of data.

  54. Kev

    The answer to (1) might be no, but still (2) be yes. (or potentially vice versa, although I don't immediately see how - no to both seems more likely than that).

  55. Zash

    Open graph, schema.org, twitter cards, dublin core, ... actual standard html <meta> tags

  56. jonasā€™

    Kev, agreed, also to the "may be yes" for (2)

  57. Zash

    If we hadn't deprecated 71 you could have built whatever description thing with that

  58. Ge0rG

    You still can ;)

  59. Zash

    OOB style desc+image might be fine tho

  60. Kev

    I don't think 71 is remotely sensible for this.

  61. Kev

    My belief that we shouldn't deprecate 71 aside :)

  62. jonasā€™

    +1 Kev

  63. jonasā€™

    the server should not handle formatting of the preview, thatā€™s client side

  64. Kev

    I think just starting with title, URL and image preview would be sufficient for the majority of cases.

  65. Kev

    (Which I think was what Zash was also saying, although I might have misunderstood)

  66. Zash

    Something in that direction

  67. Ge0rG

    Kev: that might not affect you any more, but with the new EU copyright directive, quoting of the title and image requires royalty payments to the respective publisher.

  68. Kev

    So I think you end up instead of <reference xmlns='urn:xmpp:reference:0' type='data' uri='http://xmpp.org'/> with something like <reference xmlns='urn:xmpp:reference:0' type='data' uri='http://xmpp.org'> <preview><title>XSF</title></preview> </reference> or thereabouts

  69. Ge0rG

    (it will make for an interesting precedent in court if you try to argue that it's the app that's loading the preview and not the server, with both being provided by the same party)

  70. Kev

    Ge0rG: I think that's probably a detail, rather than a protocol consideration. This'd be very useful deployed internally and just polling our Jira and Confluence instances, for example, even without hitting The Internet.

  71. Ge0rG

    Indeed.

  72. Zash

    <reference uri='http://example.com/'><oob><desc>Example site</desc><uri>an image here<////>

  73. Kev

    Zash: you want to literally use xep66 you mean?

  74. Kev

    Only with URI coerced into being a preview, rather than the data itself.

  75. Zash

    "want" is a bit strong, mostly I'm thinking out loud.

  76. neshtaxmpp

    Kev: hi have moment

  77. Kev

    I'm semi-here.

  78. neshtaxmpp

    Kev: my friend ivan has compiled latest ejabberd from github... but he dont know if he installed completly to have everything like encryption and etc. in ejabberd. i find my friend ivan manual, to download latest erlang binary from official and he follow manual that comment: alternatively, you can do the complete erlang instalattion. it uncludes the erlang/otp platform and all of its applications... question is install esl-erlang... if this is complete erlang then why it is not erlang-base...

  79. neshtaxmpp

    in my friend ivan he has only omemo and openpg... when ivan try comment message omemo it comment he use old or unsupported server... ?

  80. Kev

    I'm completely unrelated to ejabberd, not sure why you picked me.

  81. neshtaxmpp

    Kev: ejabberd xmpp is no working... and ivan send more than 2 emails in ejabberd support and no comment. when everyting is completly configured with everything... my other friend will make completly true manual. becouse in internet there is mis-configured manuals, fake manuals... and ivan has been with more than 1 month with broken ejabberd server... and when today i found him how to install official latest erlang it dont comment him error. but it is unknown if it is completly. if you know how to or if you know someone comment. thanks.

  82. Zash

    This is also not the place for ejabberd support

  83. Kev

    https://www.ejabberd.im/support/index.html

  84. Holger

    There's no place for ejabberd support šŸ˜œ

  85. Holger

    neshtaxmpp: xmpp:ejabberd@conference.process-one.net?join

  86. Holger

    neshtaxmpp: Maybe you could try to describe the problem in a concise manner (we did $x, expected $y to happen, but got error message $z instead) in that room.

  87. fire

    Welcome

  88. pep.

    no you

  89. fire

    pep., hey man

  90. fire

    I am from russia

  91. fire

    Ok?

  92. pep.

    It's fine if you are from russia

  93. pep.

    Not many people speak russian here though

  94. fire

    Yes, very good

  95. fire

    I am not speac english

  96. fire

    Don't know english language, ok?

  97. fire

    Speak*

  98. fire

    In jabber have bot translater for me?

  99. pep.

    Not in this room

  100. Zash

    This chat is about XMPP standards.

  101. fire

    Oh

  102. Zash

    What were you looking for?

  103. fire

    This room speak english language

  104. fire

    Maybe and I lern speak english language *DONT KNOW*

  105. fire

    This cool, yes?

  106. fire

    Where are your from?

  107. rion

    I'd say this chat speaks "standards" language and nothing else. well maybe except yesterday.

  108. vanitasvitae

    fire: you could join xmpp:offtopic@chat.disroot.org?join for casual chat in english ;)

  109. fire

    vanitasvitae, thanks

  110. vanitasvitae

    :)

  111. neshtaxmpp

    https://bgzashtita.es/upload/2648c95f187eff879a53c9890338a1a8d74210e6/GndMPwCWHRRIymalDzKbIhcDZIFM2p5FcsQ5BNsx/Screenshot_20190402-162851.jpg

  112. oli

    neshtaxmpp: get lost

  113. neshtaxmpp

    oli: ?

  114. oli

    go away

  115. Zash

    What's going on?

  116. neshtaxmpp

    What's going on?

  117. vanitasvitae

    What's going on?

  118. jonasā€™

    What's going on?

  119. Zash

    And I say, hey, hey, hey, hey

  120. neshtaxmpp

    oli: yo tey tag me, now commemt what is going on ?

  121. neshtaxmpp

    oli: yo try tag me, now commemt what is going on ?

  122. fire

    Zash, hey man, stop this

  123. pep.

    wat

  124. intosi

    Could we keep it civil, please? This is not Parliament.

  125. neshtaxmpp

    oli... comment ...

  126. neshtaxmpp

    oli... peoples are waiting... why you try insult me.

  127. neshtaxmpp

    what... hey i send private picture... is every body see it ?

  128. neshtaxmpp

    fire: Š‘Š¾Š»Š³Š°Ń€Šøя

  129. intosi

    It seems you inadvertently sent a picture to the room instead of in a direct message.

  130. neshtaxmpp

    intosi: so the bug... is not fixed... i send photo in private message but it still persist the bug... when someone send private picture it send it too in public room.

  131. jonasā€™

    neshtaxmpp, thatā€™s a Conversations bug though

  132. intosi

    Maybe this room isn't the venue to discuss that bug.

  133. neshtaxmpp

    jonasā€™: unknown... in the past someone say other comment. see you... bussy right now.

  134. Andrew Nenakhov

    intosi, "ŠæŠ°Ń€Š»Š°Š¼ŠµŠ½Ń‚ - Š½Šµ Š¼ŠµŃŃ‚Š¾ Š“Š»Ń Š“ŠøсŠŗуссŠøŠ¹", // parliament is no place for discussions, as one of Putin's cronies famously said.

  135. Guus

    Andrew Nenakhov I think the UK parlement said to that guy: "hold my beer."

  136. Andrew Nenakhov

    Lol

  137. intosi

    ;)

  138. dwd

    Guus, Oh, come now. The UK Parliament wouldn't agree to that.

  139. dwd

    Guus, Mostly because it can't agree on anything.

  140. Guus

    they mostly agreed to disagree.

  141. Ge0rG

    speeking of agreement. dwd, I'm still missing your vote on 0412

  142. Guus

    nice, Ge0rG

  143. dwd

    Guus, They didn't agree to that either.

  144. dwd

    Ge0rG, Subtle, that.

  145. Ge0rG

    They disagreed to agree?

  146. Ge0rG

    dwd: it's four months overdue, so every hour counts!

  147. Ge0rG

    also I need it to promote the badges!

  148. jonasā€™

    nice, peter wahers email on stanza encryption crashed my mail client

  149. Ge0rG

    it's appropriately encrypted

  150. dwd

    Kev, If I correct a message that has no '84 request iwth a correction that does have a '84 request, which id does the receipt assert is received?

  151. jonasā€™

    dwd, you do want to see the world burn, donā€™t you?

  152. jonasā€™

    dwd, I think the intent of LMC prohibits that

  153. Ge0rG

    dwd: speaking of 0184?

  154. jonasā€™

    > Correction MUST only be used to change the details of a stanza (e.g. the message body) and not to change the nature of the stanza

  155. Kev

    I'm increasingly thinking I should write a 308 replacement, using references and forwarding, to avoid this sort of ambiguity.

  156. Ge0rG

    because '84 is about pubsub

  157. dwd

    Kev, If I correct a message that has no '184 request iwth a correction that does have a '184 request, which id does the receipt assert is received?

  158. Kev

    I think we discussed this in passing at the Summit, even.

  159. dwd

    Oh. And correction didn't in this case. What ho.

  160. Ge0rG

    dwd: I wrote a long-ish analysis of 0184 LMC on standards@

  161. Ge0rG

    highlighting all(?) the corner cases

  162. dwd

    Ge0rG, The thread Kev is responding to? Or a different one?

  163. Ge0rG

    dwd: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2019-April/036025.html

  164. Ge0rG

    dwd: responding to Kev's response to my thread from last year

  165. dwd

    Oh, I'd not caught up as much as I'd thought.

  166. Kev

    So I guess the question is - if I rewrite 308 with forwards so there's no ambiguity between the payloads to be replaced, and the payloads that may be belonging to the correction stanza itself, a) would Council support it and b) would that be better as a breaking 308 update, or as a new XEP?

  167. dwd

    Oh, new XEP.

  168. Kev

    Because I think we're at the point that we need to break things.

  169. jonasā€™

    that sounds like overkill

  170. Ge0rG

    my gut feeling is also "overkill"

  171. dwd

    But also: Does anyone *want* to use XEP-0308 for anything but correcting the <body/>?

  172. Ge0rG

    but then again I'm the one with multiple pages of arguing about the meaning of 0308.

  173. Kev

    dwd: Depends if we're in a world where markup is its own element, I think.

  174. Zash

    dwd: revoking your šŸ‘ reaction?

  175. dwd

    I mean, adding a receipt or chat marker seems... Well, a bit rubbish at least.

  176. Ge0rG

    Kev: "forwarding" as in XEP-0297?

  177. dwd

    Zash, Retraction is a different thing. Perhaps?

  178. Lance

    dwd: correcting body would also change associated xhtml-im, references, etc?

  179. Kev

    Lance: Yes.

  180. Zash

    dwd: changing it to šŸ‘Ž then?

  181. dwd

    Lance, If I'd known this was the way to summon you, I'd have done this ages ago.

  182. Ge0rG

    Zash: correcting a reaction is different from reacting to a correction.

  183. Kev

    Ge0rG: Yes, as in 297. Or any other wrapper that distinguishes between replacement payloads and 'my' payloads, but 297 seems the logical.

  184. Zash

    Ge0rG: Brains

  185. Ge0rG

    Kev: much overkill.

  186. Kev

    But also the only way I can immediately see to resolve the issues you've raised about receipts.

  187. Ge0rG

    the biggest benefit I see with 0297 is that it mandates delay timestamps.

  188. Kev

    Well, no, that's not true.

  189. Kev

    It's fine to just say 'you can't add a receipt. If you have a receipt in the original, reply to it. If you have a receipt in a correction, reply to that'.

  190. Ge0rG

    yeah, not being allowed to add a receipt is perfectly fine. the problem remains nevertheless.

  191. Ge0rG

    I'm currently thinking about tracking both the *first* id and the *last* id of a set of original-corrections

  192. Ge0rG

    so that I can apply corrections from both 'right' and 'wrong' senders.

  193. Kev

    As long as you don't do the Wrong thing with ids, there's no issue, AFAICS.

  194. Ge0rG

    but that obviously doesn't solve the receipts problem.

  195. Kev

    (Combined with the above rule)

  196. Ge0rG

    Kev: but when wrong is right, then right is wrong.

  197. dwd

    What about "You cannot add or remove elements, just replace"?

  198. Ge0rG

    and where wrong is right, -1 is +1

  199. Ge0rG

    dwd: I think that's stated in 0308 already, somewhere.

  200. Kev

    As long as ids persist, and you send a receipt for any stanza that asks for one, you're good, I think.

  201. jonasā€™

    Ge0rG, dwd: > Correction MUST only be used to change the details of a stanza (e.g. the message body) and not to change the nature of the stanza

  202. Kev

    Ge0rG: The intention is, but it doesn't use exactly those words.

  203. Ge0rG

    is the _nature_ of a stanza the same as its XML skeleton?

  204. Kev

    Right, it's the fluffier test jonasā€™ pasted.

  205. Ge0rG

    I suppose the "have a common ID for all related messsages in the DB" argument is very strong. If you mandate that MAM IDs and receipt IDs are explicitly excluded from the correction-body and instead are considered correction-metadata, I will unblock the PR.

  206. Ge0rG

    Even though I dislike the concurrect corrections from multiple clients causing a random outcome situation.

  207. jonasā€™

    I find Ge0rGs argument about concurrent ACKs actually quite compelling :/

  208. Ge0rG

    (I also dislike DAGs, but I consider them appropriate in this situation)

  209. jonasā€™

    mandating the ACK-sender to send a correction to their previous ACK is in violation of '184 and also quite meh

  210. Ge0rG

    jonasā€™: the correction-of-ack part was the least serious analogy of my post

  211. Kev

    You end up with race conditions when you're correcting from multiple clients whatever happens, I think, if you try hard enough.

  212. jonasā€™

    aaaah the races, theyā€™re everywhere

  213. Ge0rG

    Kev: yes, but with the DAG, you end up with multiple leaf messages

  214. dwd

    We *can* correct from multiple devices?

  215. Ge0rG

    dwd: we are not allowed to.

  216. jonasā€™

    are we not?

  217. Ge0rG

    except in a MUC

  218. Ge0rG

    did anybody actually _read_ my message?

  219. jonasā€™

    Iā€™m sorry, not yet :)

  220. jonasā€™

    I was halfway through

  221. jonasā€™

    and then I got distracted

  222. Ge0rG

    XEP: > A correction MUST only be allowed when both the original message and correction are received from the same full-JID. My mail: > in direct-messaging siutaitons, this is violating the full-JID-MUST-match business rule in 0308, which I disagree with for practical reasons. In a MUC, ...

  223. dwd

    Ge0rG, I have a 2K screen in portrait with your email on and it doesn't fit without scrolling.

  224. jonasā€™

    dwd, turn down your fontsize, obviously

  225. Ge0rG

    what jonasā€™ said.

  226. Ge0rG

    next time I'll send HTML email that will auto-expand to your full screen width.

  227. dwd

    jonasā€™, Seriously, it's not a large fontsize to begin with.

  228. Ge0rG

    dwd: just tell me to shut up and to die on another hill.

  229. jonasā€™

    dwd, anything larger than 5 px wide `m` is too large!!

  230. Ge0rG

    I'll vote -0 and you can pass 0308.

  231. Ge0rG

    or ~coerce~ ~bribe~ convince me with your offer to vote 0412 +1

  232. Kev

    I note that I didn't block 412, despite not agreeing with the compliance suites ;)

  233. Ge0rG

    Kev: you missed out on a great trade deal opportunity!

  234. Ge0rG

    But you still have a day to change your vote.

  235. Kev

    There's still time until tomorrow afternoon :)

  236. Kev

    Or is it next week for 412? I forget.

  237. dwd

    Not if I vote now.

  238. Ge0rG

    Tomorrow.

  239. Ge0rG

    Looking at the author churn that Compliance Suites has accomplished in the past, I'm still undecided whether it was a very smart or a very dumb idea to take it over.

  240. Ge0rG

    So far, I still feel motivated and have a feeling that my skin is sufficiently thick to counter the nay sayers.

  241. Kev

    I would very very much like us to not have a 2020 Compliance Suite. I think it's long overdue for a rethink of how we do them.

  242. Ge0rG

    Kev: let's have that discussion after dwd voted +1 or the vote expires.

  243. Kev

    I'm still thinking that the idea of having two 'living' XEPs, one for 'core XEPs' and one for 'direction of travel XEPs' and talking about versions of those, instead of years of compliance suites.

  244. dwd

    Oh, that';s an interesting thought.

  245. Kev

    I think that makes it less contentious, because then you don't have people sliding in things that they want the state to be, but isn't yet, or missing out things that are the state buy they wish weren't.

  246. Kev

    You can still update yearly, but without the "Oh no, it's 2019 and we don't have a 2019 suite, the sky is falling" associated with the current suites.

  247. Ge0rG

    Kev: yes, that's a great idea. However, it will make versioning and version referencing a pain.

  248. Kev

    I think the resultant guidance would be more useful for devs, and because there isn't a mix of now and future, also more useful for the hypothetical marketing people using these things as badges.

  249. Kev

    Ge0rG: I'm not sure it's that much harder, is it? You just talk about 'state 1.0', 'state 3.2' instead of 'compliance 2018', 'compliance 2019'.

  250. Ge0rG

    Kev: I agree in principle, but both our process and our tooling is severely lacking to pull this off.

  251. dwd

    New XEP-0308 question - if I correct a message, the effect is that the message's payload is replaced by the correction, and as such, the corrected message now has the updated semantics, right?

  252. Kev

    Ge0rG: I don't immediately see why, but I might be being enthusiastically naive.

  253. Ge0rG

    Kev: congratulations, you just replaced an obvious versioning scheme with an opaque one.

  254. dwd

    Kev, Well, for one thing, we don't have an effective way to reference versions.

  255. Kev

    dwd: Other than that you shouldn't be changing semantics.

  256. Kev

    Ge0rG: Well, if XEP numbers are better, we can still keep doing what we were already doing, and including versions in the titles and replacing the whole XEP. I don't think it's ideal, but it's feasible.

  257. dwd

    Kev, RIght, but if a message has a <body/>, the corrected message has an updated body, and whatever the client did with the original body is replaced by the new one, right?

  258. Kev

    dwd: I think it's up to the client how they render it, but logically yes.

  259. dwd

    Kev, So if the corrected message is a correction, then by correcting the correction you are correcting the original message indirectly, yes?

  260. Kev

    You can't be, no.

  261. dwd

    Kev, Why not?

  262. Kev

    Because you'd be replacing the bit that tells you what you're correcting.

  263. dwd

    So the LMC element is also copied to the corrected stanza?

  264. Kev

    No, it'd be removed from the interim correction, because you replace all payloads.

  265. Ge0rG

    The process problem is that the new Compliance Suite is either bound to be Eternally Experimental, or have heavy council battles on each minor change in Draft. And obviously, Final is a no go

  266. Kev

    Thereby changing the meaning of the interim correction, which isn't allowed.

  267. dwd

    Kev, But was the LMC element copied to the original message by the first correction?

  268. Kev

    Ge0rG: It wouldn't be standards-track, presumably, would go to Active instead, but possibly.

  269. Kev

    dwd: And that's one of the reasons I'm pondering shoving it in a forward.

  270. Kev

    Because obviously not, no, but if you take it literally ...

  271. dwd

    Kev, Right, what I'm trying to figure out is whether correcting the original or correcting the correction makes any semantic difference.

  272. dwd

    Kev, I think it's nice if we pick one, mind. Just not sure it actually matters which.

  273. Ge0rG

    Forwarded will come with a nice evil can of security worms for implementations to jump over.

  274. dwd

    Security worms are the worst kind.

  275. Kev

    dwd: I think there's two possible responses to that One is that it does matter, and having a single identifier makes more sense. Two is that we already picked one, the current discussion is whether to change it.

  276. Kev

    Ge0rG: I was pondering that. So instead of 297, the new payloads are a child of the correction element? That has its own issues, but fewer.

  277. dwd

    Kev, But why does it matter, and have we actually picked one? (My impression was that existing clients do both)

  278. Ge0rG

    dwd: Kev picked one but failed to write it down unambiguously, so at least three developers picked the other one.

  279. Kev

    Well, Ge0rG agreed in the thread that the original intend of the XEP seemed to be what I claimed it to be, and this was a request to change it. So I think the XEP gives one - that clients are implemented both ways is a different (but related) issue.

  280. Kev

    Well, Ge0rG agreed in the thread that the original intent of the XEP seemed to be what I claimed it to be, and this was a request to change it. So I think the XEP gives one - that clients are implemented both ways is a different (but related) issue.

  281. Ge0rG

    Damn, I shouldn't have made that concession.

  282. dwd

    To put it another way, if you received a correction to a correction, what could it possibly mean except to update the correction (and thereby correct the original message again)

  283. Kev

    Sounds like the right time for me to check out for the day :)

  284. Ge0rG

    Kev: with what dwd said above, I'd say that "correct a correction" would be a legitimate way to interpret the XEP

  285. Ge0rG

    Kev: you have another week left to make me change my mind...

  286. fire

    Hey man

  287. fire

    Don't sleep

  288. fire

    Russia online

  289. fire

    offtopic@chat.disroot.org not connect

  290. fire

    Casual english conference for me, ok?

  291. fire

    Not fear :-D

  292. fire

    This many people

  293. fire

    I am look

  294. fire

    What is fucking shit?

  295. MattJ

    fire, hey, this room is for discussion of XMPP standards. It is not a general chat, and you have been given the address of a general chat: offtopic@chat.disroot.org

  296. fire

    MattJ, general chat not found for me

  297. fire

    MattJ, why?

  298. MattJ

    Check you typed the address correctly

  299. MattJ

    Depending on your client, this link may work: xmpp:offtopic@chat.disroot.org?join

  300. fire

    Ok

  301. fire

    Write error 400 jid malformed

  302. MattJ

    The JID is offtopic@chat.disroot.org

  303. fire

    It is work, bat not connect for me

  304. fire

    This private group maybe?

  305. MattJ

    It is not private, it works for me

  306. fire

    Why I am not going group

  307. fire

    MattJ, I'm fire, ok?

  308. MattJ

    Yes?

  309. fire

    MattJ, you like fire?

  310. MattJ

    This is not a general off-topic chat

  311. fire

    MattJ, yes

  312. fire

    General off-topic chat RIP

  313. fire

    What will be doing this

  314. fire

    My english language level zero

  315. fire

    lovetox, hey, what doing?

  316. fire

    Runing