XSF Communications Team - 2022-02-14

  1. qwestion has left
  2. qwestion has joined
  3. intosi has left
  4. Toxi has left
  5. adiaholic has joined
  6. neox has left
  7. adiaholic has left
  8. goffi has joined
  9. wh0 has left
  10. wh0 has joined
  11. intosi has joined
  12. intosi has left
  13. goffi has left
  14. la|r|ma has left
  15. adiaholic has joined
  16. Toxi has joined
  17. adiaholic has left
  18. adiaholic has joined
  19. adiaholic has left
  20. intosi has joined
  21. adiaholic has joined
  22. qwestion has left
  23. adiaholic has left
  24. xutaxkamay has joined
  25. debacle has left
  26. intosi has left
  27. emus 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?
  28. intosi has joined
  29. kikuchiyo has left
  30. malevolent_benedict has joined
  31. kikuchiyo has joined
  32. intosi has left
  33. malevolent_benedict has left
  34. malevolent_benedict has joined
  35. SouL has left
  36. adiaholic has joined
  37. adiaholic has left
  38. singpolyma has left
  39. singpolyma has joined
  40. intosi has joined
  41. adiaholic has joined
  42. malevolent_benedict has left
  43. adiaholic has left
  44. intosi has left
  45. adiaholic has joined
  46. adiaholic has left
  47. adiaholic has joined
  48. intosi has joined
  49. Jérôme has left
  50. intosi has left
  51. adiaholic has left
  52. CybHero has joined
  53. adiaholic has joined
  54. adiaholic has left
  55. adiaholic has joined
  56. adiaholic has left
  57. adiaholic has joined
  58. SouL has joined
  59. intosi has joined
  60. adiaholic has left
  61. intosi has left
  62. Jérôme has joined
  63. wh0 has left
  64. wh0 has joined
  65. Jeybe has joined
  66. me9 has joined
  67. Titi has left
  68. adiaholic has joined
  69. Titi has joined
  70. praveen has joined
  71. intosi has joined
  72. 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
  73. kikuchiyo Also I was wondering why there are widely adopted XEPs which are final/stable that don't show up in 0453.
  74. msavoritias has joined
  75. intosi has left
  76. me9 has left
  77. 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.)
  78. wurstsalat has joined
  79. emus has left
  80. Jérôme has left
  81. kikuchiyo And what's up with XEP-0114 as a part of _core_ compliance but nobody is using or documenting it?
  82. Jérôme has joined
  83. intosi has joined
  84. praveen has left
  85. intosi has left
  86. intosi has joined
  87. praveen has joined
  88. goffi has joined
  89. adiaholic has left
  90. neox has joined
  91. p42ity has joined
  92. pitchum has left
  93. Alex has joined
  94. Sam has left
  95. adiaholic has joined
  96. msavoritias has left
  97. msavoritias has joined
  98. adiaholic has left
  99. Sam has joined
  100. adiaholic has joined
  101. adiaholic has left
  102. adiaholic has joined
  103. la|r|ma has joined
  104. adiaholic has left
  105. la|r|ma 0114 is only for servers. client's can't implement it.
  106. la|r|ma 0114 is only for servers. clients can't implement it.
  107. adiaholic has joined
  108. 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
  109. 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.
  110. kikuchiyo la|r|ma: > 0114 is only for servers. clients can't implement it. oh my bad, parsing bug.
  111. 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 ...
  112. 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.
  113. la|r|ma 0203 is kinda implicit via 0313, could be made explicit though.
  114. debacle has joined
  115. 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.
  116. Jérôme has left
  117. Link Mauve You might want to add the Jingle logo to Jingle, like you added the OMEMO logo for legacy OMEMO support.
  118. kikuchiyo Link Mauve: ok, give me a link to include in the next pdf.
  119. kikuchiyo Which of the following XEPs are only for servers? 225, 386, 390, 397, 409, 433, 445
  120. Link Mauve kikuchiyo, https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/tree/master/data contains a JSON file for each client, server and library.
  121. Link Mauve If the doap field is not null, it should point to a valid DOAP file.
  122. Link Mauve Note that the Content-Type is often wrong, so you’ll have to ignore it. :(
  123. kikuchiyo Link Mauve: thx
  124. Jérôme has joined
  125. Sam Link Mauve: there's a Jingle logo? (I was actually looking for something like that the other day and didn't see anything)
  126. wurstsalat emus, I'm not sure there is a script involved. kikuchiyo, did you generate this table by hand?
  127. adiaholic has left
  128. Link Mauve https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/JingleLogo.png
  129. Link Mauve Sam, this one.
  130. Sam TIL; thanks!
  131. Sam I should have known that wikipedia would have it if it existed
  132. COM8 has joined
  133. COM8 has left
  134. adiaholic has joined
  135. COM8 has joined
  136. COM8 has left
  137. COM8 has joined
  138. COM8 has left
  139. emus has joined
  140. emus kikuchiyo: did you do table with a script?
  141. emus kikuchiyo: ah ok
  142. emus Link Mauve: nice
  143. Toxi has left
  144. Toxi has joined
  145. Jérôme has left
  146. SouL has left
  147. SouL has joined
  148. adiaholic has left
  149. adiaholic has joined
  150. goffi has left
  151. goffi has joined
  152. adiaholic has left
  153. emus kikuchiyo: https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/issues/1071
  154. emus kikuchiyo: https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/issues/1005
  155. adiaholic has joined
  156. pitchum has joined
  157. wh0 has left
  158. wh0 has joined
  159. adiaholic has left
  160. adiaholic has joined
  161. Wojtek has joined
  162. adiaholic has left
  163. adiaholic has joined
  164. adiaholic has left
  165. adiaholic has joined
  166. Jérôme has joined
  167. intosi has left
  168. intosi has joined
  169. goffi has left
  170. eevvoor has joined
  171. intosi has left
  172. intosi has joined
  173. praveen has left
  174. praveen has joined
  175. singpolyma 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
  176. la|r|ma Deferred is just another Experimental IMO.
  177. Wojtek has left
  178. la|r|ma We need some "Explicitly Deferred" which is not applied by time but by the fact that nobody is interested any more...
  179. 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.
  180. singpolyma Yeah, and explicitly deferred could still be picked up by someone else later
  181. singpolyma Really I don't look at the status at all, only if the protocol described is good and if anyone implements it
  182. Wojtek has joined
  183. 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
  184. praveen has left
  185. emus singpolyma, la|r|ma: sorry, I think I stupidly raised the to remove it. Question: wouldnt explicitly deferred be obsolete?
  186. 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"
  187. emus ok
  188. singpolyma Obsolete is called "historical" and we all implement them anyway because... History
  189. la|r|ma Also the reason for deferred could be "this works, but we somehow feel it should be improved before going to stable"
  190. Sam Nope, historical is a totally different thing :)
  191. Sam la|r|ma: no, that's experimental
  192. Sam Obsolete == security issue, deferred == maintainer needed, experimental == being worked on but not ready for stable, historical == documentation of a defacto standard
  193. la|r|ma Sam, except if the last change is moer than a year ago
  194. la|r|ma which is why I say deferred is sometimes the same as experimental
  195. singpolyma Ok, I would definitely not read obsolete as a security issue
  196. Sam Sure, that's just the editor forgetting to do things, it's not supposed to happen that way
  197. la|r|ma deferred is definitely not maintainer needed
  198. la|r|ma it's also sometimes "nobody ever really wanted that XEP"
  199. la|r|ma or "we want to get more insights first"
  200. 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.
  201. praveen has joined
  202. Sam No, it's neither of those, deferred is just "maintainer needed".
  203. singpolyma Possibly maintainer is needed because no one wants the xep and so no maintainer will be found
  204. 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
  205. 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.
  206. Sam At least, not primarily. These things aren't mutually exclusive.
  207. 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.
  208. 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.
  209. singpolyma Sam: I think the point is that defferred is "expired experimental" so it could mean anything experimental means
  210. la|r|ma The XEP author is not always a developer
  211. singpolyma Yeah, XEPs getting published with numbers before there are two implementations is an issue
  212. 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.
  213. 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
  214. Sam They are deferred because I wasn't maintaining them.
  215. adiaholic has left
  216. adiaholic has joined
  217. 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"
  218. emus Okay guys - Let's move the discussion to xsf@ best I think 🙂
  219. singpolyma Sorry :)
  220. emus No need to be sorry. Please dont feel disencouraged :)
  221. adiaholic has left
  222. Alex has left
  223. singpolyma has left
  224. Alex has joined
  225. adiaholic has joined
  226. me9 has joined
  227. singpolyma has joined
  228. adiaholic has left
  229. wh0 has left
  230. wh0 has joined
  231. p42ity has left
  232. p42ity has joined
  233. p42ity has left
  234. adiaholic has joined
  235. adiaholic has left
  236. adiaholic has joined
  237. p42ity has joined
  238. p42ity has left
  239. CybHero has left
  240. CybHero has joined
  241. la|r|ma has left
  242. goffi has joined
  243. Wojtek has left
  244. Wojtek has joined
  245. singpolyma has left
  246. singpolyma has joined
  247. kikuchiyo has left
  248. singpolyma has left
  249. singpolyma has joined
  250. Wojtek has left
  251. p42ity has joined
  252. p42ity has left
  253. kikuchiyo has joined
  254. neox has left
  255. neox has joined
  256. singpolyma has left
  257. singpolyma has joined
  258. CybHero has left
  259. p42ity has joined
  260. p42ity has left
  261. praveen has left
  262. Wojtek has joined
  263. wh0 has left
  264. wh0 has joined
  265. la|r|ma has joined
  266. Titi has left
  267. adiaholic has left
  268. adiaholic has joined
  269. abod has joined
  270. adiaholic has left
  271. adiaholic has joined
  272. Wojtek has left
  273. Wojtek has joined
  274. qwestion has joined
  275. praveen has joined
  276. adiaholic has left
  277. adiaholic has joined
  278. Jeybe has left
  279. abod has left
  280. adiaholic has left
  281. adiaholic has joined
  282. debacle has left
  283. adiaholic has left
  284. CybHero has joined
  285. Jérôme has left
  286. adiaholic has joined
  287. adiaholic has left
  288. adiaholic has joined
  289. Titi has joined
  290. adiaholic has left
  291. CybHero has left
  292. CybHero has joined
  293. CybHero has left
  294. CybHero has joined
  295. CybHero has left
  296. CybHero has joined
  297. qwestion has left
  298. adiaholic has joined
  299. CybHero has left
  300. adiaholic has left
  301. adiaholic has joined
  302. abod has joined
  303. adiaholic has left
  304. praveen has left
  305. adiaholic has joined
  306. adiaholic has left
  307. adiaholic has joined
  308. 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.
  309. abod has left
  310. debacle has joined
  311. Wojtek has left
  312. Wojtek has joined
  313. Jeybe has joined
  314. p42ity has joined
  315. adiaholic has left
  316. adiaholic has joined
  317. Wojtek has left
  318. p42ity has left
  319. adiaholic has left
  320. adiaholic has joined
  321. Jérôme has joined
  322. adiaholic has left
  323. Toxi has left
  324. adiaholic has joined
  325. TheCoffeMaker emus: I have to send the PR with the ES translation ... Didnt have time to finish it yet 🥺
  326. adiaholic has left
  327. emus has left
  328. jcbrand has left
  329. adiaholic has joined
  330. emus has joined
  331. emus no worries, take your time
  332. adiaholic has left
  333. Jeybe has left
  334. goffi has left
  335. adiaholic has joined
  336. adiaholic has left
  337. Jérôme has left
  338. emus has left
  339. msavoritias has left
  340. adiaholic has joined
  341. adiaholic has left
  342. wurstsalat has left
  343. Titi has left
  344. debacle has left
  345. Alex has left
  346. me9 has left
  347. adiaholic has joined
  348. adiaholic has left
  349. adiaholic has joined