XMPP Council - 2020-05-13


  1. stpeter has left

  2. stpeter has joined

  3. stpeter has left

  4. sonny has left

  5. sonny has joined

  6. sonny has left

  7. sonny has joined

  8. stpeter has joined

  9. debacle has left

  10. bear has left

  11. bear has joined

  12. sonny has left

  13. sonny has joined

  14. sonny has left

  15. sonny has joined

  16. stpeter has left

  17. SouL has joined

  18. sonny has left

  19. sonny has joined

  20. sonny has left

  21. Tobias has joined

  22. sonny has joined

  23. daniel has left

  24. daniel has joined

  25. daniel has left

  26. daniel has joined

  27. sonny has left

  28. sonny has joined

  29. sonny has left

  30. sonny has joined

  31. daniel has left

  32. daniel has joined

  33. sonny has left

  34. sonny has joined

  35. sonny has left

  36. daniel has left

  37. sonny has joined

  38. daniel has joined

  39. Zash has left

  40. Zash has joined

  41. sonny has left

  42. sonny has joined

  43. sonny has left

  44. sonny has joined

  45. sonny has left

  46. sonny has joined

  47. daniel has left

  48. daniel has joined

  49. sonny has left

  50. sonny has joined

  51. sonny has left

  52. sonny has joined

  53. sonny has left

  54. sonny has joined

  55. sonny has left

  56. sonny has joined

  57. sonny has left

  58. sonny has joined

  59. larma has left

  60. larma has joined

  61. sonny has left

  62. sonny has joined

  63. debacle has joined

  64. Guus has left

  65. Guus has joined

  66. dwd has joined

  67. dwd has left

  68. dwd has joined

  69. dwd has left

  70. dwd has joined

  71. kusoneko has left

  72. kusoneko has joined

  73. Wojtek has left

  74. Zash has left

  75. Zash has joined

  76. dwd

    .

  77. Ge0rG

    not yet, dwd

  78. Kev

    It's probably ok to let dwd in here at other times than meetings, under careful adult supervision.

  79. susmit88 has left

  80. Ge0rG

    Kev: I'm not sure we have anybody who could provide that kind of supervision.

  81. Kev

    Fair.

  82. Ge0rG

    But maybe the . is just a compensating measure for a client that lacks XEP-0410?

  83. dwd

    It was demonstrating XMPP to a(virtual) room full of people.

  84. dwd

    So your replies were excellent timing.

  85. jonas’

    :D

  86. Ge0rG

    were those Very Important People?

  87. dwd

    Colleagues. Included both CTO and one of our CEOs, but we're a small company and it was hardly a formal setting.

  88. Zash has left

  89. Zash has joined

  90. dwd has left

  91. dwd has joined

  92. jonas’

    :)

  93. jonas’

    as long as you didn’t want to prove the point that the XSF is a Super Serious Organization

  94. dwd

    I usually describe it as a Drinking Club with a Standards problem.

  95. Ge0rG

    Pedantics Anonymous?

  96. jonas’

    As a strict non-alcoholic, I don’t feel included in that definition ;P

  97. ralphm has left

  98. ralphm has joined

  99. stpeter has joined

  100. jonas’

    as things stand, the other meeting will start only at 16:00Z, so I’ll be able to chair today.

  101. Ge0rG

    Yay!

  102. jonas’

    Hello everyone

  103. jonas’

    1) Roll Call

  104. jonas’ is here

  105. Ge0rG

  106. Zash

    Here

  107. jonas’

    I would’ve thought that daniel would arrive, too

  108. daniel

    Hi

  109. jonas’

    excellent

  110. jonas’

    2) Agenda Bashing

  111. jonas’

    anything to add to the agenda I sent?

  112. jonas’

    (though now I wonder whether dwd will also join us)

  113. Zash

    Me too

  114. Ge0rG

    I'm not opposed to keeping it short

  115. jonas’

    me neither

  116. jonas’

    3) Editor’s Update

  117. jonas’

    - Calls in progress: - LC for XEP-0320 (ends at 2020-05-19) - LC for XEP-0339 (ends at 2020-05-19) - LC for XEP-0393 (ends at 2020-05-26)

  118. jonas’

    4) Items for voting

  119. jonas’

    4a) PR#943 Title: XEP-0068: Clarify FORM_TYPE field type on 'submit' type forms URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/943

  120. jonas’

    this is a re-do of #913, which was vetoed for $reasons by dwd

  121. jonas’

    (digging up $reasons)

  122. jonas’

    from https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2020-April/037251.html: > I hate to do this because it's so late, but some of Florian's arguments are sound, and the implications rather more so.

  123. jonas’

    and a lot more

  124. Zash

    RFC 2119 reasons?

  125. jonas’

    I think I still have a nit to pick with the text

  126. jonas’

    > Data forms with the type "submit" are free to omit any explicit field type declaration (as per &xep0004; § 3.2), as the type is implied by the corresponding "form"-type data form. As consequence, implementations MUST treat a FORM_TYPE field without an explicit type attribute, in data forms of type "submit", as the FORM_TYPE field with the special meaning defined herein.

  127. jonas’

    I wonder if the following wouldn’t be more appropriate: > Data forms with the type "submit" are free to omit any explicit field type declaration (as per &xep0004; § 3.2), as the type is implied by the corresponding "form"-type data form. As consequence, implementations MUST treat a FORM_TYPE field without an explicit type attribute, in data forms of type "submit", as the FORM_TYPE field with the special meaning defined herein if the corresponding "form"-type form had the field "hidden".

  128. jonas’

    (addition to the last sentence only)

  129. jonas’

    but I’m not going to block based on this, so +x

  130. jonas’

    but I’m not going to block based on this, so +1

  131. Zash

    on-list

  132. daniel

    On list

  133. undefined has left

  134. Ge0rG

    As I read the new text, it doesn't address Dave's remark about clarifying what a sending entity is expected to do.

  135. Ge0rG

    But I'd leave this for Dave to sort out (Sorry, Dave), and go +1

  136. jonas’

    alright

  137. jonas’

    5) Outstanding Votes

  138. jonas’

    except the new ones, none.

  139. Ge0rG

    phew.

  140. jonas’

    (except on things which have been vetoed already)

  141. jonas’

    also, thanks to Tedd for providing me with a voting summary the other day :)

  142. jonas’

    6) Date of Next

  143. dwd

    Soryr, mildly distracted yet here. 4a) +1, it seems clearer.

  144. Ge0rG

    Looks like my reading of dwd's counterargument disagrees with dwd, then.

  145. jonas’

    +1w wfm

  146. jonas’

    (likely, I might get a thing in which will make me unable to chair, again)

  147. jonas’

    likely; however, I might get a thing in which will make me unable to chair, again

  148. jonas’

    for that case, it’d be good to have a contigency plan

  149. daniel

    > +1w wfm 👍

  150. Ge0rG

    +1W WFM

  151. Zash

    +1w wfm

  152. jonas’

    of course, you’ll get an agenda ahead of time :)

  153. jonas’ lures

  154. undefined has joined

  155. jonas’

    no takers?

  156. daniel

    Ok

  157. jonas’

    thanks

  158. jonas’

    7) AOB

  159. daniel

    None here

  160. Zash

    I've got nothing.

  161. jonas’

    me neither

  162. Ge0rG

    jonas’: any news on the IM-NG-WG?

  163. jonas’

    I sent an email, didn’t I?

  164. jonas’

    so far, only people who did *not* volunteer to contribute last week replied to me ;)

  165. daniel

    I can confirm that you did

  166. jonas’

    *hint hint*

  167. Ge0rG

    jonas’: I assumed that participation from me and Daniel is automatically implied?

  168. jonas’

    Ge0rG, saying so on-list would be good, since I actively avoided to name any names.

  169. Ge0rG

    But maybe it would be a good thing to write down the corner cases that I have in my collection of weird issues.

  170. jonas’

    that, too

  171. jonas’

    as I said in the email, I’ll work out details / scheduling at the end of the week to give interested parties some time to announce their interest

  172. jonas’

    any other AOB?

  173. jonas’

    taking this as a "no"

  174. jonas’

    and with that:

  175. jonas’

    8) Ite Meeting Est

  176. jonas’

    thanks all, thanks tedd

  177. Zash

    Thanks jonas’, Tedd, and everyone!

  178. debacle has left

  179. debacle has joined

  180. debacle has left

  181. debacle has joined

  182. Wojtek has joined

  183. paul has left

  184. paul has joined

  185. Ge0rG

    jonas’: done

  186. Ge0rG

    somebody might want to translate that into an agenda on the wiki

  187. jonas’

    Ge0rG, go ahead ;)

  188. Ge0rG

    somebody *else*

  189. Ge0rG

    I'm out for today.

  190. daniel has left

  191. flow

    Ge0rG> As I read the new text, it doesn't address Dave's remark about clarifying what a sending entity is expected to do. I think it does, but I am happy to add clarifications if something is missing

  192. flow

    Ge0rG, the new text includes "Note that as per &xep0004; the form field "type" attribute may be omitted in data forms of type "submit", anything you miss in particular?

  193. Wojtek has left

  194. Wojtek has joined

  195. Wojtek has left

  196. Ge0rG

    flow: I'm referring to > I *think* we ought to be saying SHOULD send type="hidden" on submit, but MUST NOT require it when processing a submission.

  197. Ge0rG

    flow: I'm referring to > I *think* we ought to be saying SHOULD send type="hidden" on submit, but MUST NOT require it when processing a submission.

  198. Ge0rG

    "may be omitted" is not a recommendation.

  199. flow

    ahh, I do not think that it is sensible to recommend adding type='hidden' on submit to ver='FORM_TYPE' fields: the 'ver' attribute is already unique within the data form, and xep4 already says that you do not need to explicitly state the type in 'submit' forms

  200. flow

    hence recommending adding an explicit form field type declaration only for FORM_TYPE feels like special casing, which you usually want to avoid, for no gain

  201. Zash

    Usually if you submit a form, the receiver already knows the type of the field, so it would be redundant.

  202. Wojtek has joined

  203. flow

    Zash, ha, that brings me to the next question: a form fields registered by their field name only, or, by their name and their including form FORM_TYPE

  204. flow

    Zash, ha, that brings me to the next question: are form fields registered by their field name only, or, by their name and their including form FORM_TYPE

  205. flow

    I think it is field name + FORM_TYPE, but I am not sure if this is spelled out somewhere in the xeps

  206. Zash

    That sounds sensible.

  207. Zash

    I.e. it's like xmlns and tag name, the touple is the identity of the thing.

  208. flow

    right, but then on a very philosophical layer, so please ignore the following, one could argue that the receiving entity does not know if the FORM_TYPE field it looks at, is the FORM_TYPE field

  209. flow

    Zash, yep, I also noticed that this is and should be akin to xmlns and element name

  210. susmit88 has joined

  211. susmit88 has left

  212. susmit88 has joined

  213. Ge0rG

    Which is really weird and different syntax.

  214. debacle has left

  215. debacle has joined

  216. Wojtek has left

  217. susmit88 has left

  218. susmit88 has joined

  219. susmit88 has left

  220. susmit88 has joined

  221. Zash

    Ge0rG, sure. It's like a limited XML-in-XML thing.

  222. Ge0rG

    also some things break if you give them multiple dataforms

  223. Zash

    Like in disco?

  224. Ge0rG

    yeah

  225. susmit88 has left

  226. Wojtek has joined

  227. Zash

    Their bug then.

  228. flow

    right, i just recently squashed a few of the buggy "that stanza surely has only one data form" assumption sites in smack

  229. debacle has left

  230. debacle has joined

  231. raspbeguy has left

  232. raspbeguy has joined

  233. raspbeguy has left

  234. raspbeguy has joined

  235. Tobias has left

  236. susmit88 has joined

  237. jonas’ has left

  238. undefined has left

  239. robertooo has left

  240. robertooo has joined

  241. debacle has left

  242. paul has left

  243. susmit88 has left

  244. susmit88 has joined

  245. kusoneko has left

  246. kusoneko has joined

  247. susmit88 has left

  248. susmit88 has joined