I’d like to add "Revisit BMH in the context of Styling" on the Councils agenda for today, but I don’t want to abuse my editor powers to do so, so I’ll just drop this here.
daniel
when (and by whom) was this vetod upon? I can't find the minutes for that
jonasw
Link Mauve
jonasw
2017-10-18
jonasw
and SamWhited
jonasw
but I don’t see rationales
Zash
Does that mean it was actually accepted?
Ge0rG
No, -1 is a veto
Zash
I'm trying to figure out if a rationale is required :)
Ge0rG
I'd be surprised if not.
Kev
It is required that anyone vetoing provides a rationale, but a rationale isn't required to veto :)
Kev
I believe.
jonasw
I am confused, Kev.
Zash
I can barely parse that sentence. I blame the coffee.
Ge0rG
Me neither. And I've got enough coffee to rule out that source of confusion.
Zash
The word "veto" isn't in XEP 1
Zash
"object" it says
Ge0rG
"confusion" can also result if you remove a substring of "coffeine infusion"✎
jcbrand
Ge0rG: unfortunately in English it's caffeine
Ge0rG
"confusion" can also result if you remove a substring of "coffee/? infusion" ✏
Zash
> If objections are raised by the Approving Body on the Standards list or in its meeting, the XEP author is encouraged to address the feedback of the Council and to submit a revised version of the proposal and/or confer with the XMPP Extensions Editor or objecting Approving Body member(s) regarding how to proceed.
Anyone vetoing a protoXEP needs to provide a rationale, but that doesn't mean that failing to do so magically accepts the XEP.
jonasw
Kev, that makes more sense, thanks.
Ge0rG
So SamWhited is currently in violation of XEP-0001...
jonasw
(so is Link Mauve, I think, at least on the list record I can’t easily find a rationale)
jerehas joined
Kevhas left
Kevhas joined
Ge0rG
Damn, so I've violated 0001 as well.
Ge0rG
jonasw: <Link Mauve> I’ve already read it yesterday evening, and I’m very much -1 on it due to the concept of waiving any format support, forcing implementations to support multiple formats and making it impossible for a message to carry more than one (think MUC for example).
jonasw
Ge0rG, that’s not on-list unfortunately, but good to have
Ge0rG
jonasw: it's in the logs.
danielhas left
jerehas left
jerehas joined
danielhas left
danielhas joined
Kevhas left
Kevhas joined
Kevhas left
jerehas left
jerehas joined
Kevhas joined
genofirehas joined
ralphmhas left
Syndacehas left
ralphmhas left
Flowhas left
Flowhas joined
Tokodomohas joined
danielhas left
danielhas left
danielhas left
jerehas left
jerehas joined
danielhas left
jonaswhas left
danielhas left
ralphmhas joined
Tobiashas left
ralphmhas left
ralphmhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas joined
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas joined
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas joined
Syndacehas joined
genofirehas joined
georghas joined
georghas left
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
danielhas left
Link Mauve
Hi, it’s time.
daniel
I'm here
Link Mauve
Ping Tobias, SamWhited, dwd.
Tobias
pong
Tobias
Link Mauve, you want to run the meeting?
Link Mauve
I can do that yeah. :)
SamWhited
oops, I am still confused and thought it was in an hour. I also am here though.
dwd
Pang?
Tobias
go ahead :)
Link Mauve
So 1) roll call.
Link Mauve
Everyone’s here.
Tobias
here
Link Mauve
2) any minute taker?
jcbrand
I'm available
dwd
\o/
Tobias
great, thanks
jerehas joined
SamWhited
Tobias: grooming Link Mauve for command I see!
Tobias
SamWhited, :)
Link Mauve
3) Styling it seems.
danielhas left
Link Mauve
So, we have two proposals.
Link Mauve
Which is great!
Tobias
https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/styling.html
dwd
And also, which is great?
Link Mauve
And https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/markup.html
Tobias
trello just mentions one of them
Link Mauve
Oh?
Link Mauve
jonasw sent the second one yesterday, maybe we forgot to add it.
dwd
This is the next meeting for both, so we should properly consider them now.
Link Mauve
It has had a proper announce email anyway.
Tobias
Link Mauve, but we probably want to vote on each individually, not?
Link Mauve
With these proposals, I’m finally happy with deprecating XHTML-IM, it seems jonasw took into account every criticism I’ve seen on the mailing list in all threads that have been talking about it recently.
Link Mauve
Tobias, sure, but we will vote on them next week.
Tobias
ah..ok
dwd
Link Mauve, I don't follow - vote on what next week?
SamWhited
Don't we normally vote in the first meeting after a submission (or on list, of course)?
Link Mauve
(IIRC we have two weeks to vote on accepting a ProtoXEP, I can start the vote right away if you prefer.)
dwd
Link Mauve, Two weeks to vote, starting at the next meeting.
dwd
This being the next meeting.
Link Mauve
Ok.
Link Mauve
So let’s start.
Link Mauve
4) Vote on styling.html
dwd
+1.
daniel
+1
Link Mauve
On list.
SamWhited
+1, naturally
Tobias
+1
Link Mauve
Perfect.
Link Mauve
5) Vote on markup.html
Link Mauve
+1
dwd
SamWhited, You say naturally but XEP authors have voted against their own XEPs in Council before, you know.
Tobias
on list, haven't read that one yet
Ge0rGhas left
daniel
+1
SamWhited
dwd: I'd love to hear the story there
SamWhited
On list.
dwd
I'm +1 on this too. I don't think I want both, ultimately, and would prefer the other, but I'm not going to die on this hill if I can avoid it.
Link Mauve
The other one has seen a lot of criticism, before and after the proposal (it basically ignored most of the arguments against this approach), this one has only the downside of OTR and such not playing well with it; arguably OTR already has its own styling mechanism (it carries HTML).
Tobias
yeah. I think we shouldn't let restrict us by ancient OTR
dwd
Link Mauve, It is possible to take notice of arguments without agreeing with them, you know.
moparisthebesthas joined
SamWhited
Alternative take: most of the critisism was addressed and the responses were ignored, but maybe this isn't the time and the place to be throwing statements like that around.
Link Mauve
dwd, of course, but it ignored all of the arguments against Markdown not to name it.
Link Mauve
Anyway, let’s move on.
Link Mauve
6) 0146 obsoletion.
Link Mauve
This has happened since last week, so I just archived the card.
SamWhited
Sorry for the delay on that
dwd
Link Mauve, No, I'm not comfortable moving on when you're accusing others of *ignoring* arguments raised.
Link Mauve
Sorry, 5) again.
dwd
Link Mauve, That's a very different accusation then asserting that the author has chosen not to agree with, or address, the arguments in the spec.
SamWhited
dwd, Link Mauve: this is the second time something like this has been brought up recently. I certainly don't think I ignored the arguments, just disagree and addressed why I disagreed, but since obviously multiple people feel that I ignored them I can try to address it on the list again if you want.
jonasw
dwd, I think if arguments are heard, they should be in a rationale in the XEP, which Styling may or may not have done.
Link Mauve
dwd, reading both the XEP, the mailing list, and xsf@, I haven’t seen most arguments addressed.
SamWhited
However, it would be more helpful if I had a list of specific things that you feel were ignored and then I'd be happy to address them (either in the XEP or on list)
jonasw
(I added a sectino "Design Considerations" to my XEP-0392, which I think is a good way to do that)
Link Mauve
I think both XEPs should contain a strong rationale about why they are designed that way.
Link Mauve
SamWhited, I can make such a list, I’ll add that to my TODO list.
Link Mauve
There were already somewhat-summaries on the mailing list, I’ll use these.
Kev
jonasw: I think addressing every on-list discussion in a Rationale section's a jolly bad idea, FWIW.
dwd
Link Mauve, FWIW, I do not wish to set any kind of precedence that every argument raised against a XEP has to be documented in the XEP.
Kev
Yes, this would be horrendous.
Kev
Else I want every XEP to document that the protocol isn't pink enough :)
dwd
Link Mauve, And having raised this argument, but those rules you'd have to document it in every XEP.
jonasw
sure, but if arguments are brought up multiple times and are well reasoned, I don’t see why not.
jonasw
I’m fine if people say my arguments aren’t well reasoned, I’d like to know why though :-)
daniel
message styling actually addressed a lot of critisms. for example we agreed on leaving the keywords in. get rid of the disco feature and so on
Link Mauve
dwd, indeed, that sounds like a bad idea, but it would be useful to have a short list of alternative approaches and why they weren’t taken.
Link Mauve
daniel, oh? Did it change since I last read it? I remember it letting the receiving client do whatever it wanted with the rendering.
SamWhited
I made promises to change it, I didn't want to merge until it was accepted
jonasw
Link Mauve, the ProtoXEP wasn’t updated, but people agreed to change it
Kev
Which is the right thing to do, incidentally.
SamWhited
(unless of course one of those changes is blocking acceptance)
Link Mauve
Ok.
Kev
We shouldn't be mandating rendering :)
Link Mauve
Which confirms my “on list” vote for 4). :)
danielhas left
Kev
FWIW, I would recommend that if one of these two XEPs are temporarily blocked, both should be :)
Kev
Because they seem to be a pair of competing proposals that should be considered together.
Link Mauve
Sounds fair, they both are as of now.
jonasw
Kev, I personally am not seeing it that way (anymore).
Kev
(Although this is counter to my desire to get stuff published ASAP so it's under XSFness, so ... yeah)
Kev
jonasw: You might be in the minority :)
jonasw
I think both can serve a very useful but distinct purpose each. And I think that we need BMH back.
jonasw
but I guess that discussion has to wait until next week if not everyone has caught up on the list yet
jerehas joined
jonasw
I proposed to add reconsidering BMH to the agenda for today, not sure if that was seen?
daniel
so wait just to be clear and that we don't end up dead locking here. Link Mauve you want SamWhited to make those changes before you +1?
Link Mauve
I would be totally happy with revisiting my vote on BMH with compelling arguments, fyi.
daniel
because if SamWhited waites until this is approved this will dead lock
Kev
If already-promised changes are the only thing blocking, I think just taking it on Sam's word that he'll update would be fair. Personally.
Link Mauve
daniel, no, I haven’t fully caught up with the mailing list, I’m only based on my first reading of his XEP.
Link Mauve
Of course I wouldn’t block anything due to changes not having been pushed yet.
jcbrand
Just to be clear concerning the minutes, BMH was a previously proposed protoXEP that wasn't accepted right?
Ge0rGhas left
daniel
jcbrand, yes
Kev
Yes.
jcbrand
tx
Link Mauve
Yes, Flow’s one, about annotating which markup the body is formatted with.
daniel
https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/bmh.html
SamWhited
Can we hold off on revisiting that one until next week since it just got brought up?
SamWhited
I haven't had a chance to think about how that would interact with either of the new proposals
Tobias
sounds sensible
dwd
(I think, having been rejected, that it would need resubmitting for IPR purposes).
Link Mauve
Of course, your ProtoXEP changes how it could interact with the ecosystem.
Link Mauve
(That’s a detail, I’m sure Flow would be happy to do so. :))
jonasw
SamWhited, to be clear, I’d argue that Styling should get a BMH hint-namespace-thing
daniel
fwiw i don't think we need bmh for the opt-in approach to message styling that jonasw proposed
Link Mauve
I haven’t read that part yet, so I’ll abstain for now.
jonasw
I agree with daniel, but I see merit in the general idea of BMH, following the argument Flow gave when proposing it
danielhas left
jonasw
but moving this to next week until everybody has had time to consider all the XEPs seems very reasonable to me (not that I’d have any say in that)
Kev
I think what we actually need is an opt-out, but I need to have time to reply sensibly, and this is team appraisals week.
SamWhited
I think I agree with what Kev said, but I'm not 100% sure yet about the idea of hints in the styling xep.
daniel
yeah maybe opt-out is more sensible
Kev
I think what you want is
<this-was-pasted/>
for lots of thinsg.
daniel
i can live with both though
Kev
And that applies both to styling and to emoticons.
dwd
Kev, Auto-```?
Link Mauve
Kev, oh yes, sounds great.
jonasw
I still think we shouldn’t impose this on clients which don’t want that.
dwd
jonasw, That would be *terrible*.
SamWhited
Is this something people feel they need to make decisions on voting right now? If not, can we discuss specific details after the meeting? I want to make sure we get to everything before I need to leave for standup
Link Mauve
It still breaks existing simple clients, such as bots.
Kev
Usually when people disagree with me it's because they're clearly idiots, but I think in this discussion there are reasonable arguments on multiple sides.
SamWhited
Kev: I disagree.
SamWhited
(sorry, couldn't resist)
Link Mauve
SamWhited, we can discuss on list/in xsf@.
Kev
SamWhited: That would be one of the other cases.
Kev
:p
Link Mauve
So, 7) AOB?
dwd
Link Mauve, You don't want to obsolete '146 anymore?
Link Mauve
dwd, it’s obsolete already.
Link Mauve
6) was super quick. :)
dwd
Oh, misread.
dwd
No AOB from me then.
Tobias
next meeting?
Link Mauve
8) Date of next.
Link Mauve
+1W?
SamWhited
WFM
Tobias
wfm
dwd
WFM2. How many more meetings do we have? Two?
Link Mauve
Two yes.
Link Mauvebangs gravel.
Link Mauve
Thanks everyone!
Link Mauve
Btw, thanks dwd for sending chat states, it really helps to know who is going to speak next.
Link Mauve
I wish every other council member would do the same.
Tobias
thanks Link Mauve for running the meeting, thanks jcbrand for the minutes
Tobias
Link Mauve, my client doesn't support that
SamWhited
Whew, we survived the styling meeting :) thanks all!
Kev
SamWhited: Are you *sure*?
dwd
Link Mauve, Well, here's the thing. Gajim sends them, but doesn't render them.
Link Mauve
Tobias, I know, you should push for that then, it’s extremely useful during a meeting.
moparisthebest
so far, I'm still waiting for the xmpp fork of 2017 due to styling
danielhas left
Kev
Link Mauve: No-one's going to push back on it.
SamWhited
Mcabber doesn't support anything… but it does do Vim style keybindings, which is really all I want in a client.
dwd
moparisthebest, You'll *never* be able to read messages again.
Kev
I've been saying I'd like this for ages, we've just not done it yet.
Link Mauve
dwd, ah yeah, I provided the patch to send them, I don’t know if any other contributor wants to display them yet.
Link Mauve
Kev, maybe I could contribute that then. :)
dwd
Kev, Our new client does, but I'm not using it yet (it's a little simplistic). Probably good enough for MUC meetings, though.
Link Mauve
As of today I’m now unemployed, I should have more time to fix the world!
danielhas left
Kev
Link Mauve: If you want to send in a patch for send/render CSI in MUCs, it would be gratefully received (subject to normal patch things).
Link Mauve
(Of course.)
Ge0rGhas left
SamWhited
Link Mauve: Unemployed, or Funemployed?
jonasw
(where’s the difference?)
Link Mauve
SamWhited, heh, doing things for myself, with myself as the drive, and myself as the client. :)
SamWhited
Nice, I'm jealous
moparisthebest
dwd, hmm gajim colored your whole message to me red and bolded the whole thing, hence, I have no idea what your intention was
danielhas left
daniel
i should write a gajim plugin that always randomizes the color in the xhtml variant of the message
Ge0rG
daniel: randomizes the color of each letter in the message.
Link Mauve
/load rainbow
daniel
its called syntax highlighting
daniel
nouns red, verbs blue, adjectives green and so on
jonasw
daniel, looking forward to a piece of software which gets this right!
dwd
jonasw, Stanford released some OSS code to do that in Java a while back.
danielhas left
jcbrandhas left
SamWhited
An extension to replace all messages with the results of <messagebody> | cowsay | lolcat
jonasw
aww, lolcat doesn’t install
Link Mauve
__
_ / /
(_) |
_| |
(_) |
\_\
Link Mauve
Hey, just like Yaxim and Conversations display single emoji bigger, poezio could do so with figlet!
danielhas left
jonasw
figlet fails at utf8.
Link Mauve
I know. :(
SamWhited
https://i.imgur.com/mhEqyAK.png
SamWhited
I can see that working well for all messages in Gajim.
jonasw
SamWhited, | figlet!
SamWhited
cowsay and figlet don't play well together
jonasw
they do
jonasw
also, that’s kindof the point
SamWhited
not on my machine; maybe there are options
jonasw
it looks weird for sure, but it produces sensible output
jonasw
ah ok, it breaks with long messages
danielhas left
Syndacehas left
Syndacehas joined
danielhas left
Ge0rGhas left
danielhas left
danielhas left
danielhas left
Kevhas left
ralphmhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rG
Link Mauve: take the Google NoTo Emoji font and render its SVG into the flickering avatar square
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
danielhas left
Ge0rGhas left
ralphmhas joined
danielhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
ralphmhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
jerehas left
jerehas joined
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
SamWhited
Would anyone be against me making a few slight changes to the styling XEP that don't actually affect anything before it actually gets published? I figured I might as well go ahead and commit some simple editorial changes (typos, definitions, etc.) that I was going to make assuming its accepted (since they're already done, I was only holding off on the larger changes because I didn't want to waste time if it didn't get accepted)
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
ralphmhas joined
Kevhas joined
Tobiashas joined
Ge0rGhas left
jonasw
SamWhited, editorial changes etc. seem fine to me
Ge0rGhas left
SamWhited
yah, me too, I just want to make sure the people voting don't have any objection
Kev
SamWhited: Was it accepted?
SamWhited
Kev: one remaining vote on list
Kev
If it's not accepted, there's no issue updating the protoXEP. If it's accepted, you don't need Council approval to make changes to an Experimental XEP of which you're the author.
SamWhited
good point, I guess I could make them anyways.
Kev
So while *technically* you should publish the version that was approved, I don't think it's going to hurt much.
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Kevhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
jonasw
FWIW, I’ve been holding back editorial changes etc. until after approval too
Ge0rGhas left
daniel
Yeah just update it
moparisthebest
I haven't heard a single person argue it should be kept as-is so
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Kevhas joined
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Tobiashas joined
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
danielhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
danielhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Kevhas left
Ge0rGhas left
Ge0rGhas left
jerehas joined
Ge0rGhas left
SamWhited
I ended up pushing some of the simple non-editorial changes too: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/537
SamWhited
Still more to do, but that was all the simple stuff that didn't require a lot of work or that I already had done, plus I tried to clear up a few things.