-
dwd
.
-
Ge0rG
not yet, dwd
-
Kev
It's probably ok to let dwd in here at other times than meetings, under careful adult supervision.
-
Ge0rG
Kev: I'm not sure we have anybody who could provide that kind of supervision.
-
Kev
Fair.
-
Ge0rG
But maybe the . is just a compensating measure for a client that lacks XEP-0410?
-
dwd
It was demonstrating XMPP to a(virtual) room full of people.
-
dwd
So your replies were excellent timing.
-
jonas’
:D
-
Ge0rG
were those Very Important People?
-
dwd
Colleagues. Included both CTO and one of our CEOs, but we're a small company and it was hardly a formal setting.
-
jonas’
:)
-
jonas’
as long as you didn’t want to prove the point that the XSF is a Super Serious Organization
-
dwd
I usually describe it as a Drinking Club with a Standards problem.
-
Ge0rG
Pedantics Anonymous?
-
jonas’
As a strict non-alcoholic, I don’t feel included in that definition ;P
-
jonas’
as things stand, the other meeting will start only at 16:00Z, so I’ll be able to chair today.
-
Ge0rG
Yay!
-
jonas’
Hello everyone
-
jonas’
1) Roll Call
- jonas’ is here
- Ge0rG
-
Zash
Here
-
jonas’
I would’ve thought that daniel would arrive, too
-
daniel
Hi
-
jonas’
excellent
-
jonas’
2) Agenda Bashing
-
jonas’
anything to add to the agenda I sent?
-
jonas’
(though now I wonder whether dwd will also join us)
-
Zash
Me too
-
Ge0rG
I'm not opposed to keeping it short
-
jonas’
me neither
-
jonas’
3) Editor’s Update
-
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)
-
jonas’
4) Items for voting
-
jonas’
4a) PR#943 Title: XEP-0068: Clarify FORM_TYPE field type on 'submit' type forms URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/943
-
jonas’
this is a re-do of #913, which was vetoed for $reasons by dwd
-
jonas’
(digging up $reasons)
-
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.
-
jonas’
and a lot more
-
Zash
RFC 2119 reasons?
-
jonas’
I think I still have a nit to pick with the text
-
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.
-
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".
-
jonas’
(addition to the last sentence only)
-
jonas’
but I’m not going to block based on this, so +x✎ -
jonas’
but I’m not going to block based on this, so +1 ✏
-
Zash
on-list
-
daniel
On list
-
Ge0rG
As I read the new text, it doesn't address Dave's remark about clarifying what a sending entity is expected to do.
-
Ge0rG
But I'd leave this for Dave to sort out (Sorry, Dave), and go +1
-
jonas’
alright
-
jonas’
5) Outstanding Votes
-
jonas’
except the new ones, none.
-
Ge0rG
phew.
-
jonas’
(except on things which have been vetoed already)
-
jonas’
also, thanks to Tedd for providing me with a voting summary the other day :)
-
jonas’
6) Date of Next
-
dwd
Soryr, mildly distracted yet here. 4a) +1, it seems clearer.
-
Ge0rG
Looks like my reading of dwd's counterargument disagrees with dwd, then.
-
jonas’
+1w wfm
-
jonas’
(likely, I might get a thing in which will make me unable to chair, again)✎ -
jonas’
likely; however, I might get a thing in which will make me unable to chair, again ✏
-
jonas’
for that case, it’d be good to have a contigency plan
-
daniel
> +1w wfm 👍
-
Ge0rG
+1W WFM
-
Zash
+1w wfm
-
jonas’
of course, you’ll get an agenda ahead of time :)
- jonas’ lures
-
jonas’
no takers?
-
daniel
Ok
-
jonas’
thanks
-
jonas’
7) AOB
-
daniel
None here
-
Zash
I've got nothing.
-
jonas’
me neither
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: any news on the IM-NG-WG?
-
jonas’
I sent an email, didn’t I?
-
jonas’
so far, only people who did *not* volunteer to contribute last week replied to me ;)
-
daniel
I can confirm that you did
-
jonas’
*hint hint*
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: I assumed that participation from me and Daniel is automatically implied?
-
jonas’
Ge0rG, saying so on-list would be good, since I actively avoided to name any names.
-
Ge0rG
But maybe it would be a good thing to write down the corner cases that I have in my collection of weird issues.
-
jonas’
that, too
-
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
-
jonas’
any other AOB?
-
jonas’
taking this as a "no"
-
jonas’
and with that:
-
jonas’
8) Ite Meeting Est
-
jonas’
thanks all, thanks tedd
-
Zash
Thanks jonas’, Tedd, and everyone!
-
Ge0rG
jonas’: done
-
Ge0rG
somebody might want to translate that into an agenda on the wiki
-
jonas’
Ge0rG, go ahead ;)
-
Ge0rG
somebody *else*
-
Ge0rG
I'm out for today.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.✎ -
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. ✏
-
Ge0rG
"may be omitted" is not a recommendation.
-
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
-
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
-
Zash
Usually if you submit a form, the receiver already knows the type of the field, so it would be redundant.
-
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✎ -
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 ✏
-
flow
I think it is field name + FORM_TYPE, but I am not sure if this is spelled out somewhere in the xeps
-
Zash
That sounds sensible.
-
Zash
I.e. it's like xmlns and tag name, the touple is the identity of the thing.
-
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
-
flow
Zash, yep, I also noticed that this is and should be akin to xmlns and element name
-
Ge0rG
Which is really weird and different syntax.
-
Zash
Ge0rG, sure. It's like a limited XML-in-XML thing.
-
Ge0rG
also some things break if you give them multiple dataforms
-
Zash
Like in disco?
-
Ge0rG
yeah
-
Zash
Their bug then.
-
flow
right, i just recently squashed a few of the buggy "that stanza surely has only one data form" assumption sites in smack