kikuchiyo: can you remove deprecated and obsolete xeps?
Link Mauve: wurstsalat can we use his script to render a list like this?
or can the PR do such a thing already?
intosihas joined
kikuchiyohas left
malevolent_benedicthas joined
kikuchiyohas joined
intosihas left
malevolent_benedicthas left
malevolent_benedicthas joined
SouLhas left
adiaholichas joined
adiaholichas left
singpolymahas left
singpolymahas joined
intosihas joined
adiaholichas joined
malevolent_benedicthas left
adiaholichas left
intosihas left
adiaholichas joined
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
intosihas joined
Jérômehas left
intosihas left
adiaholichas left
CybHerohas joined
adiaholichas joined
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
SouLhas joined
intosihas joined
adiaholichas left
intosihas left
Jérômehas joined
wh0has left
wh0has joined
Jeybehas joined
me9has joined
Titihas left
adiaholichas joined
Titihas joined
praveenhas joined
intosihas joined
kikuchiyo
emus: I noticed that xep 0048 is deprecated but a requirement for _advanced group chat_
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0459.html#nt-idm45924173849280
kikuchiyo
Also I was wondering why there are widely adopted XEPs which are final/stable that don't show up in 0453.
msavoritiashas joined
intosihas left
me9has left
kikuchiyo
> kikuchiyo: can you remove deprecated and obsolete xeps?
I can provide a file without those lines.
My intent to include those was to raise the question whether they should be removed from affected clients, or whether they are backward compatibilities. (That is a question for XSF and client devs.)
wurstsalathas joined
emushas left
Jérômehas left
kikuchiyo
And what's up with XEP-0114 as a part of _core_ compliance but nobody is using or documenting it?
Jérômehas joined
intosihas joined
praveenhas left
intosihas left
intosihas joined
praveenhas joined
goffihas joined
adiaholichas left
neoxhas joined
p42ityhas joined
pitchumhas left
Alexhas joined
Samhas left
adiaholichas joined
msavoritiashas left
msavoritiashas joined
adiaholichas left
Samhas joined
adiaholichas joined
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
la|r|mahas joined
adiaholichas left
la|r|ma
0114 is only for servers. client's can't implement it.✎
la|r|ma
0114 is only for servers. clients can't implement it. ✏
adiaholichas joined
la|r|ma
I agree 0048 should probably be removed from an upcoming iteration of compliance suite, we have it there because it remains the most used method for as long as some clients won't implement 0402
la|r|ma
final/stable doesn't imply that it's always a good idea to implement it. 0258 for example is stable, but it's a niche feature not relevant to most clients and certainly not for the public, federated XMPP network.
kikuchiyo
la|r|ma:
> 0114 is only for servers. clients can't implement it.
oh my bad, parsing bug.
kikuchiyo
la|r|ma:
> final/stable doesn't imply that it's always a good idea to implement it. 0258 for example is stable, but it's a niche feature not relevant to most clients and certainly not for the public, federated XMPP network.
Yes, but what about those widely supported like 0199, 0203 ...
la|r|ma
0199 doesn't need to be implemented. It can be useful for connectivity checks to your server, but those can also be done in another way.
la|r|ma
0203 is kinda implicit via 0313, could be made explicit though.
debaclehas joined
Link Mauve
kikuchiyo, instead of directing DOAP updates to you, it’d be better to direct them to xmpp.org and for you to use it as your source of DOAP files.
Jérômehas left
Link Mauve
You might want to add the Jingle logo to Jingle, like you added the OMEMO logo for legacy OMEMO support.
kikuchiyo
Link Mauve: ok, give me a link to include in the next pdf.
kikuchiyo
Which of the following XEPs are only for servers? 225, 386, 390, 397, 409, 433, 445
Link Mauve
kikuchiyo, https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/tree/master/data contains a JSON file for each client, server and library.
Link Mauve
If the doap field is not null, it should point to a valid DOAP file.
Link Mauve
Note that the Content-Type is often wrong, so you’ll have to ignore it. :(
kikuchiyo
Link Mauve: thx
Jérômehas joined
Sam
Link Mauve: there's a Jingle logo? (I was actually looking for something like that the other day and didn't see anything)
wurstsalat
emus, I'm not sure there is a script involved. kikuchiyo, did you generate this table by hand?
kikuchiyo: also note that deferred doesn't mean no one implements or that it's a bad idea, just that it missed procedural deadlines. Sometimes deferred stuff becomes stable once again later after someone champions it
la|r|ma
Deferred is just another Experimental IMO.
Wojtekhas left
la|r|ma
We need some "Explicitly Deferred" which is not applied by time but by the fact that nobody is interested any more...
Sam
How would that be different from deferred as it is today? We could presumably explicitly move something to deferred if the author indicated they weren't interested, but whether it happens that way or after a year seems about the same.
singpolyma
Yeah, and explicitly deferred could still be picked up by someone else later
singpolyma
Really I don't look at the status at all, only if the protocol described is good and if anyone implements it
Wojtekhas joined
singpolyma
And while there xep charts are useful when doing that research, a client saying "we support xep XXX" can mean wildly different things sometimes, so you always have to actually try it
praveenhas left
emus
singpolyma, la|r|ma: sorry, I think I stupidly raised the to remove it.
Question: wouldnt explicitly deferred be obsolete?
Sam
No, obsolete means "we do not recommend implementing this", deferred means "no one is working on this, but they might start again in the future and it might still be worth having"
emus
ok
singpolyma
Obsolete is called "historical" and we all implement them anyway because... History
la|r|ma
Also the reason for deferred could be "this works, but we somehow feel it should be improved before going to stable"
Sam
Nope, historical is a totally different thing :)
Sam
la|r|ma: no, that's experimental
Sam
Obsolete == security issue, deferred == maintainer needed, experimental == being worked on but not ready for stable, historical == documentation of a defacto standard
la|r|ma
Sam, except if the last change is moer than a year ago
la|r|ma
which is why I say deferred is sometimes the same as experimental
singpolyma
Ok, I would definitely not read obsolete as a security issue
Sam
Sure, that's just the editor forgetting to do things, it's not supposed to happen that way
la|r|ma
deferred is definitely not maintainer needed
la|r|ma
it's also sometimes "nobody ever really wanted that XEP"
la|r|ma
or "we want to get more insights first"
Sam
That's the most likely reason, but sure, there are other reasons to obsolete something. If I'm generalizing though that's the way to think about it if you're not going to actually go dig in and figure out why.
praveenhas joined
Sam
No, it's neither of those, deferred is just "maintainer needed".
singpolyma
Possibly maintainer is needed because no one wants the xep and so no maintainer will be found
Sam
Or rather, it's not necessarily "needed" just "no maintainer" if you want to be pedantic. The point is that deferred XEPs *might* be wanted and maintained again in the future
Sam
And it's definitely not "we want to get more insights first" unless it's just a mistake and the editor needs to mark it as deferred.
Sam
At least, not primarily. These things aren't mutually exclusive.
la|r|ma
There is a number of deferred XEPs where someone designed the spec, everybody agrees it's probably good as is, but nobody implemented it so nobody is really certain. There is no lack of maintainer in those cases.
Sam
Sure, it can be "we want to get more insight" but then the author leaves so it goes to deferred and it's both.
singpolyma
Sam: I think the point is that defferred is "expired experimental" so it could mean anything experimental means
la|r|ma
The XEP author is not always a developer
singpolyma
Yeah, XEPs getting published with numbers before there are two implementations is an issue
Sam
Fair enough; maybe I'm wrong, after all these years writing XEPs the XSF process still seems obtuse and confusing to me, so it's quite possible.
la|r|ma
Maybe check your own XEPs that are deferred and see if they are deferred because you don't want to maintain them or if there is another reason
Sam
They are deferred because I wasn't maintaining them.
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
singpolyma
I think we're covering two perspectives here. I think that from a procedural / author / XSF perspective deferred of course means "no maintianer" but that's not the information a XEP reader needs or cares about so they will try to infer a more useful status like "fine but abandoned" vs "needs work" vs "being used in the wild but no one cared to bump the xep"
emus
Okay guys - Let's move the discussion to xsf@ best I think 🙂
singpolyma
Sorry :)
emus
No need to be sorry. Please dont feel disencouraged :)
adiaholichas left
Alexhas left
singpolymahas left
Alexhas joined
adiaholichas joined
me9has joined
singpolymahas joined
adiaholichas left
wh0has left
wh0has joined
p42ityhas left
p42ityhas joined
p42ityhas left
adiaholichas joined
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
p42ityhas joined
p42ityhas left
CybHerohas left
CybHerohas joined
la|r|mahas left
goffihas joined
Wojtekhas left
Wojtekhas joined
singpolymahas left
singpolymahas joined
kikuchiyohas left
singpolymahas left
singpolymahas joined
Wojtekhas left
p42ityhas joined
p42ityhas left
kikuchiyohas joined
neoxhas left
neoxhas joined
singpolymahas left
singpolymahas joined
CybHerohas left
p42ityhas joined
p42ityhas left
praveenhas left
Wojtekhas joined
wh0has left
wh0has joined
la|r|mahas joined
Titihas left
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
abodhas joined
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
Wojtekhas left
Wojtekhas joined
qwestionhas joined
praveenhas joined
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
Jeybehas left
abodhas left
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
debaclehas left
adiaholichas left
CybHerohas joined
Jérômehas left
adiaholichas joined
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
Titihas joined
adiaholichas left
CybHerohas left
CybHerohas joined
CybHerohas left
CybHerohas joined
CybHerohas left
CybHerohas joined
qwestionhas left
adiaholichas joined
CybHerohas left
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
abodhas joined
adiaholichas left
praveenhas left
adiaholichas joined
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
emus
I invite to collaborate the review of the GSoC applications text within the next 24hrs.
PLEASE use the comment function ONLY and do not edit directly: https://yopad.eu/p/xsf_gsoc2022
See top bar.
abodhas left
debaclehas joined
Wojtekhas left
Wojtekhas joined
Jeybehas joined
p42ityhas joined
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
Wojtekhas left
p42ityhas left
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
Jérômehas joined
adiaholichas left
Toxihas left
adiaholichas joined
TheCoffeMaker
emus: I have to send the PR with the ES translation ... Didnt have time to finish it yet 🥺