XSF Discussion - 2019-09-04

pep.: Thanks for this information!

got another friend using ios. which client should i recommend him?

chatsecure or monal jubalh

i think i read something that monal is not in the appstore anymore?

i have no idea about ios. so i don tknow how to install things that are not in that store

monal has Problems with mucs but displays message previews. Chatsecure manages MUCs kind of ok, but gives only the nr of new messages as preview

I only saw 'Siskin' now. Anzy experience with this? Or Zom?

as far as I know zom is still very beta?

not sure ...

hmm..

Message Retractions is quite famous lately. /me reading JC's thread on standards@

Also Andrew Nenakhov as usual pushing for their non-standard solution :)

(In russian)

>pep.: reading JC's thread on standards@ Please tell, where?

https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2019-September/036406.html

🙏 thank you

jonas’, https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/810#issuecomment-527553988, what kind of message do you expect in that block? "Make pubsub URIs confirm to RFC5222" or sth?

pep., something like that, ideally with a naming of the section with which the old version conflicted

k

Left comments

Thanks. I'm not on the laptop anymore, I'll try to remember when I get back on it

Doesn't GitHub send you e-mails?

That I have now read?

Unread them?

You trying to fix my workflow like this has little chances of succeeding, but thanks :)

You are right: good luck remembering and I indeed want no part in your workflow.

ralphm, hmm, can I just reference 0147 then (which in turn references 5222)?

5*1*22

Sure

In retrospect it is very regrettable that this RFC didn't get that other number.

oops, 5122 yes

ok last attempt for https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/810 ?

jonas’, hmm, do I just say "XEP-0147" then, or do I also add the title of the XEP and a link to it (as if I had used the entity)

You cannot add link sthere

that’s why you cannot use the entity ✏

I see

Ok I guess we can squash that later if you want then. pushing again.

I won’t do any squashing

if you feel embarrased by ugly commit history, you have to do it yourself ;)

nah it's fine

I am proficient in git, you can’t confuse me with a force push :)

I mean I could have done it if you wanted, I'm fine like this

*but I'm fine like this

jonas’: really? Oh, man.

I didn't know the changes section was restricted

everything is restricted

it’s DTD’d after all

thus, whitelist-based

yup

SCRAM is in progress: https://github.com/scram-xmpp/info/issues/1

Thanks a lot to Alexey Melnikov for changes: https://github.com/cyrusimap/cyrus-sasl/commits/master.

If your projects are not listed, please inform me in private with SCRAM details: https://github.com/scram-xmpp/info/issues/1

Neustradamus: honestly I don't see a reason to maintain some strange issue in some strange project on github. maybe it's better to make a wiki page? on xsf wiki or somewhere at https://github.com/xsf/

rion: You can see the number of tickets without solution: https://github.com/xsf/ ;)

it's pretty normal situation

https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/issues https://github.com/xsf/registrar/issues https://github.com/xsf/rfcs/issues https://github.com/xsf/schemas/issues

So opening more issues in more places is the obvious solution to that, yeah

Ge0rG: you can see publication date

Ge0rG: what Kev said in council@. I'm drafting a blog post, with various way of pointing to things (attaching, referencing, etc.), in protocol and visual renderings, along with explanatory prose.

dumb question (maybe?), why do we need the disco example in all XEPs? They're all the same and it's always the same format once we know what feature advertize

Would a <disco var='urn:xmpp:foo'/> tag be doable in xslt to produce all this boilerplate?

Only if you want to go to the hassle of changing XEP-0001 for it.

process :(

You needn't have disco spelt out in that way; I think most people just cut and pasted from another XEP to have it in.

On the assumption you're writing a XEP, just phrase it how you want and leave out the boilerplate. I don't think every XEP needs to spell it out in full - in fact, there's solid arguments why they shouldn't.

Indeed