XMPP Council - 2018-07-25

  1. Dave

    jonasw, I'm being slow on the agenda - it's just PR 681 and ProtoXEP fsn I can see, is that right?

  2. Dave

    jonasw, Oh... Wait. We're not meeting today are we? Never mind!

  3. Link Mauve

    #682 will also need council for half of it, fyi.

  4. Link Mauve

    Author for the other one.

  5. Link Mauve

    But they are the same change.

  6. jonasw

    Link Mauve, > + <p>Alternatively, the proxy may be exposed directly on the Requester’s server, in which case it use Service Discovery on this domain, like for every previous disco#items results.</p> -EGRAMMAR

  7. jonasw

    can you fix that pls?

  8. Link Mauve

    There is a grammar issue in this sentence?

  9. Dave

    Link Mauve, "it *can* use"? "it *must* use"?

  10. jonasw

    at least "it use" -> "it uses"

  11. Link Mauve

    Oh. >_<

  12. Dave

    Link Mauve, Or "it use*s*".

  13. jonasw

    but I think there should be a verb inbetween

  14. Link Mauve

    Should probably.

  15. jonasw

    (it is in both commits btw)

  16. jonasw

    why not MUST?

  17. Link Mauve

    Ah no, “needs”.

  18. Link Mauve


  19. Link Mauve

    (Yes, this was a copy/paste.)

  20. jonasw

    needs to then

  21. Link Mauve

    jonasw, abuse of 2119 in every sentence wasn’t the trend back when 0065 was written.

  22. jonasw

    "needs to use" then

  23. Dave

    "RFC 2119 in not a stick with which to beat people", as Pete Resnick once said.

  24. Dave

    (In response to a later review of what became https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4469, when Randy Gellens noticed it didn't use RFC 2119 at all)

  25. Link Mauve

    Fixed the grammar.