XMPP Council - 2013-11-27

are there diffs for the 0124 and 0206 changes?

the template needs an update to use &LEGALNOTICE;

fippo: http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/

thanks kev

So Event Logging's off the agenda, if it's not been updated, presumably.

regarding rayo-fax, isn't sending and receiving facsimile via bare HTTP kind of insecure? how can you be sure you've got the right document?

are the changes to XEP-0206 really just the remove of references to RFC 3920?

Tobias: yeah, all of the substantive fixes are in 124

ok..thx

Is it only me who thinks dynamic-forms is a little like 301 for 004?

heh, that's a pretty good comparison

The note beneath example 3 is a bit wonky, it seems to be mandating the tab order in the UI.

i like the idea of dynamic forms, but i think the xml bits as defined are too messy

Do we habitually only show payloads without the wrapping stanzas anywhere else?

yes, we do that sometimes

the PEP ones in particular

but that's in an explicit data format section

kev: 0167 does that as well

in an "application format" section

OK, ta.

Hmm, errors with type='result' is a bit odd.

I was hoping to get everything reviewed in 2 hours. It's nearly been one, and I'm still on dynamic forms.

ah... i'll have to vote on-list then :-/

at least for that item

I'm not convinced about some bits of this, not enough to block Experimental, I think, but I think it'd need rework before Draft.

what would block experimental, in general?

I'd generally block Experimental if something was clearly broken, or conflicted with existing specs.

I really want some chocolate before Council. Who wants to provide some? :)

yay, winfried reviewed the bosh updates

the wizard stuff reminds me of the horror of adjusting to QWizards strange innards :)

"Patches to XEP-0206 only delete refs, without replacing them" sounds like he used the diff tool

fippo, yeah...it seems to have problems with out cites

Kev, how does it mandate tab ordering?

you mean "should wait for the response before deciding which control is the next control to go to."?

Yes.

it'd be doable...but what if the user just clicks on a another field...but yeah...it's not such nice of an experience

But why should it be doing this?

probably preventing navigation to a field that a server-pushed update is removing

we start in 19 minutes, right?

yup

For reference, here's the patch for 124 I missed when collecting them all: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2013-February/027118.html

Does that mean we're not advancing 124 today?

I think so

:/

But keep it on the agenda to bring up any issues that have been found so far

And I'm finished reviewing stuff with 8 minutes to spare. Go me.

And it's timee

1) Roll call

here

(I've poked Matt)

here

here

Kev, both?

Both?

nvm

2) http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0124-1.11.html

mattm isn't on the council anymore :)

Lance still has pending changes before publishing 1.11, but are there any objections to what's there so far?

I'm going to vote on BOSH on-list, I likely have quite a bit of feedback (I already pointed out one issue with the new doc)

http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0124/diff/1.10/vs/1.11rc1#added-diff-15 <--space separated -> comma-separated is it just fixing the documentation or is it implemented in both ways out there?

But I may not object if the remainder isn't serious

But stpeter said he would put up a new version

(iirc)

Fippo?

looked good to me so far

Tobias: the text used to say space, but the example used commas

3) http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0206-1.4.html

Lance, ahh..okay..and out there it's implemented with commas

i'm +1 on 206

i'm +1 too

I'm +1

+1 for 206

MattJ?

One sec, checking my notes

Oh, right, on list for this too, I guess.

Or not :)

+1 on this

4) http://xmpp.org/extensions/tmp/xep-0156-1.1.html

Anyone? I'm +1

+1

+1

+1

yeah... i had a nit but poked lance

which resolved it so +1

Ta.

5) http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/dynamic-forms.html

i have reservations with how this one is defined

i'll vote on list, no time to review it yet

not enough to block experimental, but it would need significant reworking

Lance: agreed

I'm not blocking Experimental, although I think it needs work.

i like the general idea and what possibilites it enables, although we don't want to enforce to much constraints on the UI

I'm +1 for experimental

Tobias: What's that in terms of block or not?

i'm okay with accepting it as experimental...but before it goes to draft this should be taken care of, at least discussed in the XEP

OK.

The new eventlogging was on the agenda, but that's not been published yet so it'll have to wait.

6) Date of next.

I'm not able to make next week, so up to everyone else if you meet without me.

I'm ok for next week

oh, i won't be able to make next week either

Meetings usually get a little eratic around Christmas.

+spelling

next week works for me, the week after that likely doesn't

Tobias?

I can make both weeks

both works

ETOOMANYTOBIAS

Ok, so Tobias, Matt, Fippo want to meet just the three of you?

Just +1/-1 for the sake of ease, please.

i broke key input on mac by enabling assistive technologies

-1, I don't see an urgency

-1, if something comes up we can still coordinate quick enough

(This is taking longer than any of the real items!)

Just schedule all weeks. If no quorum, defer.

It's a complex issue

OK, good enough. Shall we meet the following week, then?

+1

+1

ralphm, Ha! Back in our day [etc]

+1

ralphm: Planning to not have quorum seems ill-advisable.

7) AOB?

ralphm, Dave Cridland: Don't you have a video call to attend to? ;)

ben langfield updated the nits in the rayo-cpa and -fax btw

Kev, none here

Can I drop in a bit?

none XSF related from me

winfried: Sure.

Kev: Good, I'm not advising you plan to not have quorum.

I checked the XEP-0124 and XEP-0206 changes against te lists we made at FOSDEM

there are still some patches misssing and some (minor) issues with the patches

(sorry for doing this so late)

winfried, can you post to the list?

winfried: you should post that to the list

Since I'm to do the same anyway

He has.

he did.

winfried already has :)

Oh :P

yay

Well I'll take a look then, must have missed it

Only just before Council.

that's why I asked for 124 to be postponed for me to correct those

yep...

winfried: Anything to discuss here? We delayed 124 anyway.

Got it

winfried, Is there any sense if putting through this update and then adding the open issues later?

winfried, Perfect being the enemy of good, and all that.

the missing patch of M&M better should be incorporated

other updates can be done later

(maybe better even)

This can all happen on list, yes? There's no Council actions here.

OK

Marvellous.

Thanks all.

Thanks Kev

thanks

thanks kev

Simon, nothing to see here, just discussing BO*H

;-)