XMPP Council - 2013-05-29

greetings and salutations

Hey :)

hola

I seem to recall that Kev sent his regrets?

He said he might be late

iirc

I think so, too

ah ok

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

Now ralphm's here, +1

aloha

0) Roll call

here

Here

I'm here

Tobias?

yup

here

1) XEP-0297: Move to draft?

+1

+1

+1

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

"There are many situations is which" ...

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

+1 (after consideration)

I'm −1 until the SHOULD is a MUST

heh

unless a good argument for the SHOULD?

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

well

I can't think of one right now ✏

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.

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

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

arguably, the same holds for pubsub

/nod

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

I am just thinking aloud about this, while we can

heh

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

me too

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

Well the XEP "strongly prefers" it already

Just there might be exceptions

However none of us can think of one :)

I'm totally ok with embedding

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

right

allright then

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

yes

wfm

any more pressing opinions?

ok, moving on

ProtoXEP Chat Markers: Accept as Experimental?

http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/chat-markers.html

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

Sorry. I did warn I could be late

(that would be 2)

hi Kev!

hello Kev

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

ugh

!-1

heh

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

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

Kev: should be, or must be?

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

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

but I don't immediately object to the approach either

Markers?

correct

There's a lot I don't understand

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.

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

of course!

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

Kev: no. Focus!

and noted

I think the "subscribe" is global

Global to...?

the server?

The world!

it's not immediately clear

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

which is one of the objections I have

the 'marker providing service'

Then what if I communicate with someone on another server?

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

or, more specifically, your account

So chat markers don't work over s2s?

That's... quite a limitation

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

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

I agree

with MattJ

I can post to the list

noted

well, MattJ, you have raised your concern

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

right

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

http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/color-parameter.html

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

How widely is XEP-0122 implemented?

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

we fix that

jabberjocke: thanks

ok, in that case !-1

I've no objections either

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

only RGB support? not HSV :)

there we go

:D

nor RGBA (-:

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

iterating is good :)

+1

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

but other than that i'm +1

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

m&m:blocking draft? whats that?

perfect

see xep-0001

ok

I have an AOB

4) date of next meeting

ralphm: noted, and so do I

SBTSBC WFM

wfm

+1

+1

5) Any other Business?

yes

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

I remember we talked about coloring XEPs more prominently

according to their status

Mmm

hm

like with a side ribbon

Yes

whatever happened with that?

no one did the work? (-:

People still think we have a gazillion standards

I think it's a fine idea

exactly

there was a prototype?

I don't recall a prototype

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

oh, maybe I dreamt of one

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

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

well, prototypes and POCs are welcome

ehm

Please Lord No.

heh

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

stpeter, wouldn't that be like trolling the IETF

uml diagrams in acsii text is a challenge

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

anyway, enough of that :-)

so, my AOB is LC for Carbons

Yay

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

it already complies with the coming changes, AFAICT

yes it would be good to finish that one off

+1

+1

Tobias?

+1

that leaves Kev, which will be on list

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

unless there's anything else...

Nothing from me

thanks!

Thanks :)

minutes to be sent presently

after I get some coffee!

thanks m&m

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

I think so, yes

I'm not fussed about the MUST

so it's just me (-: