It's probably ok to let dwd in here at other times than meetings, under careful adult supervision.
susmit88has left
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.
Zashhas left
Zashhas joined
dwdhas left
dwdhas joined
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
ralphmhas left
ralphmhas joined
stpeterhas joined
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".
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
undefinedhas joined
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!
debaclehas left
debaclehas joined
debaclehas left
debaclehas joined
Wojtekhas joined
paulhas left
paulhas joined
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.
danielhas left
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?
Wojtekhas left
Wojtekhas joined
Wojtekhas left
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.
Wojtekhas joined
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
susmit88has joined
susmit88has left
susmit88has joined
Ge0rG
Which is really weird and different syntax.
debaclehas left
debaclehas joined
Wojtekhas left
susmit88has left
susmit88has joined
susmit88has left
susmit88has joined
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
susmit88has left
Wojtekhas joined
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