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