I wonder what is missing for eventlogging to be approved as experimental and get a number?
MattJ
wfm
Kev
Peter Waher: That's done, isn't it?
MattJ
sorry, my ethernet cable fell out
Kev
Ah, no.
Peter Waher
well, it hasn't been published
Kev
Needs Fippo and Matt to not object.
stpeter
Kev: I think we were waiting for Council members to vote
Kev
There's another week for them to do so.
fippo
kev: no objections
fippo
(didn't I say that before?)
Kev
fippo: Not in response to the minutes, at least.
Kev
Just MattJ, then.
Kev
5) AOB?
Zashhas joined
stpeter
I mentioned another vote on XEP-0152
fippo
any new votes on colibri?
MattJ
Sorry, didn't know that was waiting on me - though I know BOSH is
MattJ
I'll get to it
stpeter
the previous Council did not complete its voting, and I made changes to address Council feedback
Kev
stpeter: I think the procedure, given xep1, is for another if Council doesn't finish voting by the end of term.
fippo
stpeter: is 0152 referenced by cusax?
Kev
Although I'm happy to skip that if everyone else is.
stpeter
fippo: yes
stpeter
Kev: yes, another vote for sure
MattJ
I'm happy with 152
Kev
fippo: No, that's still pending me to review it (colibri), I have a TODO.
Lance
+1 on 152
stpeter
but that can wait until the next meeting, I think (for 152)
Kev
stpeter: There was an "LC" missing from that sentence.
fippo
i'll review 0152 tomorrow, but it looked good
stpeter
Kev: ah, that I'm not completely sure of, but either way is fine with me
stpeter
and yes, it is referenced by RFC 7081
Kev
That is - I think xep1 says to LC again if Council doesn't finish voting by the end of term, but I'm not opposed to skipping it if everyone's happy to.
stpeter
(informationally, anyway)
Kev
Shall we schedule to vote on it on the 8th?
stpeter
Kev: you are right...
If the XMPP Council does not complete voting on a XEP before the end of its term, the XMPP Extensions Editor shall issue a new Last Call on the Standards list and the newly-elected Council shall vote anew on the XEP after completion of the Last Call. This provides an opportunity for any member of the previous Council who had voted -1 to voice his or her concerns in a public forum before the new Council votes on the XEP.
ralphm
Did we even start voting?
stpeter
so let's follow our process :-)
Kev
stpeter: WFM.
Kev
Any other AOB?
stpeter
(BTW I also plan to ask the Council for a LC on XEP-0279)
stpeter
one AOB
stpeter
or 2 perhaps
ralphm
(i.e. 0152 is not listed in the tally for the 12th council)
stpeter
(1) are we OK with accepting proposals (like Philipp's) that have not gone through the inbox?
Kev
stpeter: Not in general, no.
fippo
stpeter: the xml is in the inbox actually
Peter Waher
So, am I waiting for input on eventlogging to continue?
MattJ
What practical difference does it make?
MattJ
Peter Waher, yes
MattJ
(from me, it seems)
Peter Waher
when can I expect this input?
Kev
Peter Waher: Within a week.
ralphm
Section 5 of XEP-0001 clearly shows that it is not ok.
stpeter
(2) see discussion about the liaison relationship with UPnP Forum, but that's before the XSF membership right now so no action required for the Council
Peter Waher
thanks
Kev
(People who don't vote in a meeting get a fortnight to do so on-list before they're DNV)
stpeter
MattJ: it doesn't make a practical difference, so I think it's fine to have people request publication in a less formal way, I just want to make sure we're all clear that this is fine :-)
ralphm
Although I am no longer on the council, I prefer we stick to the procedure
MattJ
If I can see rendered versions easily before voting, I'm not too concerned about what the URL is :)
ralphm
because it is a single location and notification to the standards@ list is part of it
Kev
I think this was a special case, as it was put in inbox, and there was a non-technical change needed when Council voted on it.
Kev
But in just about all cases, I think it should go through the inbox+Peter.
ralphm
I thought this was about the generic case, not this one.
Peter Waher
the tables in IM discussion, I would also appreciate some feedback on this issue
Kev
(I note we sometimes pre-approve stuff, too, which is ~= the same as this case)
stpeter
(as to inbox+Peter, I was thinking last night that we might want to turn the editor's role into a standing XSF Work Team, but I'll ponder that a bit more before suggesting it to the membership... :-)
Peter Waher
especially from Peter, since he's the author of XHTML-IM, and recommended a separate XEP in favor of using XHTML-IM
Kev
stpeter: That seems like a sensible thing to do.
stpeter
Peter Waher: yes, I will review your proposal and the email thread after the Board meeting
Kev
Peter Waher: I'll try to get to it when I'm trying to clear out my XSF stuff when I get back from holiday in the new year.
Peter Waher
excellent, thanks :)
ralphm
Lance mentioned some confusement on his part regarding tables, and I have the same.
Kev
I think we're done for the Council meeting, then?
ralphm
Was it really suggested it would not be another profile of XHTML in a different XEP?
stpeter
Kev: yes
Kev
Marvellous, thanks all.
Kevbangs the gavel.
MattJ
Thanks Kev
Kev
ralphm: I thought the suggestion (I've not looked at that thread in a while) was to have a discoverable feature that meant "And I also accept xhtml-im tables", and that was about it.
ralphm
Kev: right
Lance
Kev: ok, that was my take away too
stpeternods
ralphm
Kev: so I don't really understand why Peter Waher went for a separate thing.
Kev
I've not looked at it in a while, I need to catch up.
Peter Waher
I understood it that way
Peter Waher
because so many did not want to change the XHTML-IM implementation
Peter Waher
thinking it was too complex
Peter Waher
with rendering
Kev
I don't think it was a case of complexity, it was a case of not shoving new stuff into a Draft XEP.
Kev
Or, at least, that would be my complaint.
ralphm
IMO we could amend XHTML-IM to allow for (discoverable) extensions and then have the XHTML Basic Tables Module.
Dave Cridlandhas joined
stpeter
ralphm: quite possibly, yes
Kev
ralphm: Although XHTML-IM itself doesn't need to allow for discoverable extensions, I think, if another XEP just says "If you advertise feature X, also accept tables".
ralphm
Kev: the XEP forbids it currently
ralphm
so at least some word smithing is in order
Kev
Nothing is forbidden by negotiation :)
Peter Waher
the problem with the XHTML table module is that it is rather complex, and there was a desire to have a reduced set also
Peter Waher
and then there was the discussion about blacklisting vs. whitelisting which made me feel the XHTML-IM was a topic some didn't want to touch
Lance
the black/whitelisting issue is mainly just client implementation details we've found to occur in practice (where using only a blacklist is insecure against creative attackers). we just have to ensure that things work when only a whitelist is in use, since that's the safer route
ralphm
People will otherwise simply map the new stuff to HTML. Badly.
stpeter
Peter Waher: well, we have "profiled" the other modules (some of which are also complex), so I don't see that as a showstopper
Peter Waher
ok
Peter Waher
so, if you could revise the previous communication and then let me know in detail how you would like to see this extended, I can write an extension accordingly
Peter Waher
if you feel the proposal is not in accordance to what you prefer
stpeter
Peter Waher: yes, I will look at it in more detail here very soon