SamWhitedIt seems like most people on list (with a few exceptions of course) were interested in a replacement, and that a large group (unsure if majority) were interested in deprecating before a replacement is ready given the history of security issues with this spec.
dwdSamWhited, I largely agree; however it doesn't feel like we have consensus across the standards participants, and I'm not sure how we could get it.
SamWhitedI don't think we can or ever will reach a consensus and it's up to the council to make a decision taking the community feeling into account.
SamWhitedAnything this big is impossible to get consensus on, that's why we have a council.
Tobiasyeah...there are definitly reasonable opinions on wanting to keep it
SamWhitedIt did seem to me that most were in favor of a replacement though, and that "go ahead and deprecate" or "push forward on a replacement and wait then deprecate" is the place where there was more contention
SamWhitedOr is that just me?
dwdSamWhited, I don't think that's a bad reading. Just that the minority against deprecation were both vocal and reasonable.
Tobiasthat's also the impression i got
SamWhitedCool; obviously I'm biased so I wanted to make sure I didn't misread the temperature of that thread
KevI think the conversation stalled because some people are watiing to see the alternative.
dwdSamWhited, Don't get me wrong, I'd like to kill XHTML-IM with fire. All the opinion I've got from dedicated web developers is that handling user-entered XHTML is playing with fire.
KevI thought we were going to see the new spec that wasn't likely to be easy to mis-implement.
SamWhitedI think we should push forward with an alternative and would like to volunteer to write a proposal and start a SIG to investigate how it could be done better.
dwdKev, I've half a snippets XEP, which might address some of the needs for XHTML.
SamWhitedA proposal for a SIG, I mean.
dwdSamWhited, I don't really want to spin off a whole SIG if we can avoid it.
SamWhitedThat also sounds fair, I thought that might be a good way forward but could go either way
SamWhitedI volunteer to email the list asking for interest and requirements gathering then :)
danielFwiw I still have that im markdown xep on my todo list
danielI've been traveling for the last couple of weeks though and didn't get around to
TobiasSamWhited, sounds great initating a mail asking for interest/requirements
SamWhitedMy plan was to ask for formatting use cases, distill requirements and scope from that, and then see if any of the existing proposals fit or call for a new one.
Tobiasright, maybe markdown fills those requirements or not, we'll see
SamWhitedSounds good, I'll prepare that email sometime over the next few days.
TobiasSamWhited, so do we want to vote on obsoleting it now or do you withdraw your request to have it obsoleted. Just want to make sure your initial request isn't overlooked.
SamWhitedI would like to request that we obsolete XHTML-IM now. As always, this will not result in everyone not supporting it overnight, it just means we don't recommend new implementations. Given its history, I think it would be irresponsible to continue to recommend it.
Tobiasarlight..then let's vote on it
Tobias4) Vote on Obsoleting XEP-0071: XHTML-IM
dwdI think a greater match for the community would be to have a replacement for the IM case, so I'll vote -1 (noting that this is presumably a simple majority vote and therefore this is not a veto).
Link MauveWoops, sorry I didn’t see the time.
Link MauveI’m here now, let me backlog.
Tobiasi'm also -1 until there is an alternative experimental XEP for the IM case. XHTML-IM is currently the only way to exchange formatted messages between XMPP clients
SamWhitedI'd like to note that I think always requiring a replacement before we can stop recommending something is one of the faults with our process. It's always the same, and is why we have duplicate specs, old things no one implements that are just confusing, and specs with security issues still around.
SamWhitedAlso that not recommending it does not mean no one can implement it if they just desperately want compatibility with something else that already has it.
dwdSamWhited, I don't think it *is* part of our process. I just think it matches my sense of the standards list participant's preference better.
SamWhitedYah, "process" might be the wrong word, "culture" maybe.
Link MauveI’m -1 on obsoleting, as the XEP fills a very much needed feature and there is no alternative currently.
TobiasSamWhited, what do you recommend people wanting formatted messages in their XMPP client and also want to interop with other clients out there right now?
SamWhitedAnd there probably won't be as long as people can use "but we already have a thing" as an excuse. Obsoleting also provides pressure to come up with a replacement.
SamWhitedI recommend they don't, but if they really need to then nothing stops them from implementing XHTML-IM anyways.
TobiasSamWhited, that's true.
SamWhitedOr I recommend they join the discussion about a replacement; obsoleting also provides pressure towards coming up with a good replacement.
Link MauveSamWhited, pressure isn’t anything we need imo.
Link MauveIf someone wants to take part into that SIG (even informal), they would do so without any kind of pressure from us.
SamWhitedAnd I will as I mentioned earlier, but that's not the only place where a bit of pressure is helpful.
dwdActually, I think SamWhited has convinced me to change my vote.
SamWhitedConvincing people to contribute is also useful, taking away "but we already have a spec that's draft" as an argument is also helpful.
dwdOn balance, deprecating it will at the very least break the stalemate, so I'll change my vote ot +1 to deprecate.
dwdSorry for the confusion.
SamWhitedThanks Dave, I appreciate it. Obviously I feel strongly about it
TobiasXEP-0001 doesn't mention whether disapproving XEPs requires a majority vote or all council members being in agreement. But I'd assume it's majority as it's the same for the approval case
SamWhited> A majority of Council members must vote +1 in order for a XEP to advance.
SamWhitedI assume that's advancing to any state, including obsolete
SamWhitedBut I'm not sure. Board question?
TobiasSamWhited, according to the flow chart it would be an advancement
dwdTobias, I believe that if Council folk were allowed to veto it would be mentioned.
TobiasSo with 3 (+1) votes and 2 (-1) votes, we decide to change the state of XEP-0071: XHTML-IM to Obsolete
Tobias5) Date of next
TobiasSame time next week
TobiasI can't do that but happily read the mails
dwdTobias, Erm, Deprecated, surely, not Obsolete?
Tobiasso someone else would need to run it
Tobiasdwd, didn't we have the discussion once, whether to vote twice to Deprecate and then again to Obsolete it or to vote on directly Obsoleting it
Tobiasor am I misremembering things?
SamWhitedI probably screwed up the terminology, I always mix them up. I could see it being either deprecated or obsolete.
Link MauveTobias, we did, but dwd said deprecating in this discussion, not obsoleting.
Link MauveBut we are totally ok with advancing twice in a same vote.
Link MauveI’m still -1 even to deprecating, it’s very much not a sensible direction imo.
SamWhitedShall we just say deprecated since it should technically happen first and then we can discuss if obsoleting makes more sense next time?
Tobiasalright..then let's make it Deprecated
Tobiasi honestly don't care much as I can't see the difference between the two states
SamWhitedyah, I doubt anyone makes much of a distinction
danielI think the people who voted +1 are happy with obsolete as well
danielAnd it wouldn't change the minds of the -1
Tobiasdaniel, yeah...as there's no difference between the two states
Link MauveAh right, an AOB, about the pending votes.
Link MauveJust a reminder.
SamWhitedI could go either way also, so we could just say that dwd gets to decide since he's the only unvoiced opinion?
Tobiasright, people please vote. Sam and I did today. Someone should takes those votes into trello and move things to editor column if all votes are in
Tobiasdwd, do you care much whether it's Deprecated or Obsolete?
dwdI think I'd be more comfortable with Deprecated ("new implementations are no longer encouraged") as compared with Obsolete ("should no longer be [...] deployed").
TobiasSo with 3 (+1) votes and 2 (-1) votes, we decide to change the state of XEP-0071: XHTML-IM to Deprecated
Tobiasno other AOB? great
SamWhitedSorry for the terminology confusion
Tobiasbangs the gavel
Tobiasjcbrand, thanks for writing the minutes
SamWhitedThanks all; sorry for the big contentious topic, I knew that would divisive when I first sent a mail to the list about it.
KevFWIW, Final XEPs have to have a replacement before they can be Deprecated. I don't believe that's true of Draft.
KevAnd any -1 prevents a XEP from advancing.
SamWhitedKev: no, 0001 says that advancement requires a simple majority
Tobias> A majority of Council members must vote +1 in order for a XEP to advance.
KevI think you're wrong.
KevLet me check.
KevYes, the sentence before the one you quote "A XEP shall not be advanced to the next stage in the approval process so long as any Council Member continues to vote -1"
Link MauveSamWhited, it also says it requires “rough consensus” on standards@, which it is far from imo.
KevIt requires a majority to be +1, with no -1s.
dwdKev, I don't think Final has to be replaced to be Deprecated. It just says that if it is replaced, it'll become Deprecated.
Kevdwd: I guess you could reasonably read it that way, yes.
SamWhitedI am now even more confused about the process. In that case, what are the reasons for -1s? Just that there is no other formatting XEP? What would make those concerns "addressed"? Discussion started? A SIG started? An experimental XEP submitted? Or does something have to get all the way to Final?
TobiasSamWhited, no.for me it would be enough to have an alternative experimental XEP
Tobiasthen we can say to people do that instead
Link MauveYes, same for me.
Link MauveSomething which could provide roughly as much interoperability as what we have currently.
SamWhitedSo saying "don't do formatting in new implementations until something new is on the table" is not an acceptable recommendation for either of you?
Link Mauve(So not BMH, for which it’s explicitly a non-goal.)
Tobiasi'll reply to the minutes that it's not actually deprecated
Link MauveSamWhited, implementations do want formatting, and saying there is no way to do any kind of formatting atm is misleading at best, and harmful in general.
Link MauveI know. :)
SamWhitedBut anyways, I'll start gathering use cases like I said in the beginning and we can keep this on the table. Although it sounds like it will be for the next council to finish again
SamWhitedGiven that we're so close to the end of term
Link MauveThanks SamWhited.
Tobiasjcbrand, will you cc standards too?
jcbrandTobias: I always do, however I need to send from different mail accounts since I'm subscribed with different accounts. Who could I ask to change the email address with which I'm subscribed to firstname.lastname@example.org?
TobiasPhew. Mailman admin?
Tobiasdon't know who that is though
Link MauveI just reported my votes and Tobias’s on the trello.