XMPP Council - 2013-05-29

  1. Neustradamus has left

  2. Neustradamus has joined

  3. m&m has joined

  4. m&m has left

  5. Tobias has left

  6. bear has joined

  7. Kev has joined

  8. Tobias has joined

  9. bear has left

  10. Kev has left

  11. Kev has joined

  12. Tobias has joined

  13. Tobias has left

  14. Kev has left

  15. Tobias has left

  16. Tobias has joined

  17. bear has left

  18. m&m has joined

  19. Tobias has left

  20. Tobias has joined

  21. Lance has joined

  22. stpeter has joined

  23. stpeter

    greetings and salutations

  24. Zash has joined

  25. MattJ

    Hey :)

  26. m&m


  27. stpeter

    I seem to recall that Kev sent his regrets?

  28. MattJ

    He said he might be late

  29. MattJ


  30. m&m

    I think so, too

  31. stpeter

    ah ok

  32. m&m

    but I think we can get started, and he can catch up

  33. ralphm has joined

  34. MattJ

    Now ralphm's here, +1

  35. ralphm


  36. m&m

    0) Roll call

  37. ralphm


  38. MattJ


  39. m&m

    I'm here

  40. m&m


  41. Tobias


  42. Tobias


  43. m&m

    1) XEP-0297: Move to draft?

  44. MattJ


  45. ralphm


  46. Tobias


  47. m&m

    There's a typo in the intro that I'm sure the XEP Editor will fix

  48. m&m

    "There are many situations is which" ...

  49. m&m

    Also, I think I agree with other sentiments that extensions MUST contain <forwarded/>, not merely SHOULD

  50. Florob has joined

  51. MattJ

    +1 (after consideration)

  52. m&m

    I'm −1 until the SHOULD is a MUST

  53. stpeter


  54. m&m

    unless a good argument for the SHOULD?

  55. m&m

    "unless there is a good argument for the SHOULD?"

  56. MattJ

    I can't think of oneright now

  57. ralphm


  58. m&m needs last message correct

  59. MattJ

    I can't think of one right now

  60. ralphm

    I had suggestions about PubSub some time, where people asked why the payload of events were embedded. If they were not, the original message might be interpretable, (like with Atom), even if PubSub wasn't.

  61. ralphm

    I'm not sure if that's an argument here, though

  62. m&m

    so far the embeddings of <forwarded/> provide important context

  63. ralphm

    arguably, the same holds for pubsub

  64. m&m


  65. ralphm

    but there you could think of some 'see my sibling' semantics

  66. ralphm

    I am just thinking aloud about this, while we can

  67. m&m


  68. Lance

    as a client dev, i strongly prefer the embedded version over sibling

  69. m&m

    me too

  70. ralphm

    in <iq/>s it would not work anyway, as it can only have one child (not counting error)

  71. MattJ

    Well the XEP "strongly prefers" it already

  72. MattJ

    Just there might be exceptions

  73. MattJ

    However none of us can think of one :)

  74. ralphm

    I'm totally ok with embedding

  75. MattJ

    and this SHOULD isn't even for implementations as much as future protocol developers

  76. m&m


  77. ralphm

    allright then

  78. ralphm

    so m&m, do we change it to MUST?

  79. m&m


  80. ralphm


  81. m&m

    any more pressing opinions?

  82. m&m

    ok, moving on

  83. m&m

    ProtoXEP Chat Markers: Accept as Experimental?

  84. m&m


  85. Kanchil

    m&m: http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/chat-markers.html: XEP-xxxx: Chat Markers

  86. Kev has joined

  87. Kev

    Sorry. I did warn I could be late

  88. m&m

    (that would be 2)

  89. stpeter

    hi Kev!

  90. m&m

    hello Kev

  91. Kev

    I was stuck in a meeting room without wifi to be able to join!

  92. m&m


  93. ralphm


  94. m&m


  95. Kev

    As embedding in 297, I think it should be embedded.

  96. ralphm

    But I like the discussion on how it should be activated.

  97. m&m

    Kev: should be, or must be?

  98. ralphm

    I'm not terribly fond on having another protocol with 'subscribe' as a verb

  99. m&m

    I don't object to the idea, but I'm not sure I like this approach

  100. m&m

    but I don't immediately object to the approach either

  101. MattJ


  102. m&m


  103. MattJ

    There's a lot I don't understand

  104. Kev

    I think I'm too on the run at the moment to contribute sensibly, so I'll vote on everything when I get the minutes, if I could, please.

  105. MattJ

    Do I have to subscribe to all the people I have a conversation with?

  106. m&m

    of course!

  107. Tobias

    haven't had time to read chat markers yet...will vote on list

  108. ralphm

    Kev: no. Focus!

  109. m&m

    and noted

  110. m&m

    I think the "subscribe" is global

  111. MattJ

    Global to...?

  112. m&m

    the server?

  113. Zash

    The world!

  114. m&m

    it's not immediately clear

  115. Lance

    MattJ: the way i read it, you basically just subscribe to your archive, which tracks last/read received for each jid

  116. m&m

    which is one of the objections I have

  117. ralphm

    the 'marker providing service'

  118. MattJ

    Then what if I communicate with someone on another server?

  119. xnyhps has joined

  120. ralphm

    in this spec, it is assumed to be your own server

  121. ralphm

    or, more specifically, your account

  122. MattJ

    So chat markers don't work over s2s?

  123. MattJ

    That's... quite a limitation

  124. Lance

    MattJ: the protoxep is very handwavy there. it'd need expanding, but it is doable

  125. MattJ

    Until I see how, I'm not sure I can be +1 to accepting a vague outline

  126. m&m

    I agree

  127. m&m

    with MattJ

  128. MattJ

    I can post to the list

  129. m&m


  130. ralphm

    well, MattJ, you have raised your concern

  131. ralphm

    that counts as a -1 just fine. Just send a message to standards@ to that effect and we'll reiterate

  132. m&m


  133. m&m

    3) ProtoXEP Data Forms - Color Field Type: Accept as Experimental?

  134. m&m


  135. Kanchil

    m&m: http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/color-parameter.html: XEP-xxxx: Data Forms - Color Field Type

  136. MattJ

    How widely is XEP-0122 implemented?

  137. m&m

    other than the abuse of prefixed XML that is not inline with XEP-0122, I've no objections

  138. jabberjocke

    we fix that

  139. m&m

    jabberjocke: thanks

  140. ralphm

    ok, in that case !-1

  141. MattJ

    I've no objections either

  142. m&m

    There are a few implementations out there … I had written a couple at one point (-:

  143. Tobias

    only RGB support? not HSV :)

  144. ralphm

    there we go

  145. MattJ


  146. m&m

    nor RGBA (-:

  147. m&m

    but I don't see that as a reason to object

  148. jabberjocke

    iterating is good :)

  149. MattJ


  150. m&m

    I can see that as blocking Draft, but that's a while off

  151. Tobias

    but other than that i'm +1

  152. m&m

    ok, so Peter Waher and/or "jabberjocke" to submit an update removing the prefixes, then we should be good to accept

  153. jabberjocke

    m&m:blocking draft? whats that?

  154. jabberjocke


  155. m&m

    see xep-0001

  156. jabberjocke


  157. ralphm

    I have an AOB

  158. m&m

    4) date of next meeting

  159. m&m

    ralphm: noted, and so do I

  160. m&m


  161. Tobias


  162. ralphm


  163. MattJ


  164. m&m

    5) Any other Business?

  165. ralphm


  166. MattJ

    Yes, but we don't know what it is yet

  167. ralphm

    I remember we talked about coloring XEPs more prominently

  168. ralphm

    according to their status

  169. MattJ


  170. m&m


  171. ralphm

    like with a side ribbon

  172. MattJ


  173. ralphm

    whatever happened with that?

  174. m&m

    no one did the work? (-:

  175. ralphm

    People still think we have a gazillion standards

  176. Kev_ has joined

  177. m&m

    I think it's a fine idea

  178. stpeter


  179. ralphm

    there was a prototype?

  180. stpeter

    I don't recall a prototype

  181. m&m

    I don't remember seeing one, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen

  182. ralphm

    oh, maybe I dreamt of one

  183. stpeter

    we could start an XMPP Area at the IETF and republish all the Draft/Final specs as RFCs...

  184. ralphm

    Do we know of anyone we can volunteer to work on this?

  185. m&m

    well, prototypes and POCs are welcome

  186. ralphm


  187. Kev_

    Please Lord No.

  188. m&m


  189. m&m

    I would rather hold judgement on that until they support Unicode, at a minimum

  190. Tobias

    stpeter, wouldn't that be like trolling the IETF

  191. jabberjocke

    uml diagrams in acsii text is a challenge

  192. m&m

    I don't think the RFC XML format is any worse or better than the XEP XML format, but I think the lack of Unicode, image handling, and some other pieces is too much of a dealbreaker

  193. stpeter

    anyway, enough of that :-)

  194. m&m

    so, my AOB is LC for Carbons

  195. Zash


  196. m&m

    It's dependent on −297, but I don't think that needs to hold up its LC

  197. m&m

    it already complies with the coming changes, AFAICT

  198. stpeter

    yes it would be good to finish that one off

  199. ralphm


  200. MattJ


  201. m&m


  202. Tobias


  203. m&m

    that leaves Kev, which will be on list

  204. m&m

    ok, we're seven minutes over, but we started a couple minutes late

  205. m&m

    unless there's anything else...

  206. MattJ

    Nothing from me

  207. ralphm


  208. m&m bangs gavel

  209. MattJ

    Thanks :)

  210. m&m

    minutes to be sent presently

  211. m&m

    after I get some coffee!

  212. waqas has joined

  213. Tobias

    thanks m&m

  214. waqas has left

  215. Kev_ has left

  216. Kev has left

  217. Florob has left

  218. m&m

    just to clarify, is everyone (but me) +1 to advance −297?

  219. MattJ

    I think so, yes

  220. MattJ

    I'm not fussed about the MUST

  221. m&m

    so it's just me (-:

  222. Tobias has left

  223. xnyhps has left

  224. Tobias has joined

  225. Lance has joined

  226. Zash has joined

  227. Lance has joined

  228. Neustradamus has joined

  229. Lance has joined

  230. Lance has joined

  231. Lance has joined

  232. ralphm has left

  233. ralphm has joined

  234. ralphm has left

  235. ralphm has joined

  236. ralphm has left

  237. ralphm has joined

  238. Tobias has left

  239. Zash has left

  240. m&m has left

  241. stpeter has left