jonas’there was some discussion in context of this on-list, see: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2020-May/037443.html
daniel+1
jonas’I’m still not certain that this is a good place for that type of info, but it certainly doesn’t harm
jonas’so +1
Zash+1, assuming this is how registries work
susmit88has left
jonas’that’s not how registries work, but we don’t have a working registry, so this is the second-best thing
dwdYes, some suggestion of whether this should be in DNS or .well-known, but it feels like putting it here is a necessary first step.
jonas’Zash, do you want to change your vote based on that bit of info? ;)
ZashNah, +1 still
jonas’alright
jonas’4c) Decide on Advancement of XEP-0393: Message Styling
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0393.html
LC-Thread: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2020-May/037394.html
Abstract: This specification defines a formatted text syntax for use in instant messages with simple text styling.
dwdSo I quite like this. But I'm aware that lots of people do not.
jonas’-1, because of:
- Concerns raised on the mailing list by community members about an explicit opt-in switch for the use of styling
- Concerns raised on the list (by me and others) about the lack of any possible way to replace this with an updated variant (either in this or a future document) because of lack of explicit signalling
- Concerns by me and others that putting "markup" in the <body/> is *not* the way to go in XMPP (this is more of a weak purity argument to some extent)
- Security concerns because people will do stupid things with existing markdown parsers and the document should mention that, even though they’re not 100% compatible.
ZashI agree with jonas’
dwdThe problem as I see it is that there are a bunch of conflicting demands around styled text in messages, and I don't think we have any clean solutions yet. This is definitely not one, either.
jonas’that said, I’d like to repeat what I said in my original email: This thing did a great deal of improvement by providing rich text to flagship clients. This is good for UX. I think this was a useful intermediate step, and now we need to find a way to do this properly.
jonas’but this should not be on Standards Track as is. I’d be happy to put this to Informational-Active actually.
jonas’oh, and I forgot to mention another reason for -1:
- Lack of explicit formal grammar to write a compliant parser.
dwdAnyway - I think I'm +0 on this advancing to Draft
jonas’15:11:10 Zash> I agree with jonas’
shall I record that as a seconding of my -1?
daniel+1 this is standardizing something that clients in one form or another have been doing for years. this is not really in-body markdown because the formatting doesn’t get removed. it's just a suggestion on how do visually display emphasis that a user would give the text regardless. therfor it doesn’t need opt-in or opt-out
Zashjonas’: sure.
dwddaniel, I know it doesn't need signalling or negotiation, but I think it would be nicer if it did.
dwddaniel, Also, how would you feel about Informational/Active here?
danieli'm not against adding a hint <hey-there-im-using-393/>
jonas’daniel, in that case I argue that it doesn’t belong on Standards Track. It can maybe live in Informational or be moved to modernxmpp.org; just like the rules for how to use '392 with JIDs and stuff
jonas’daniel, in that case I argue that it doesn’t belong on Standards Track. It can maybe live in Informational or be moved to modernxmpp.org (or a similar resource); just like the rules for how to use '392 with JIDs and stuff
danieladding that hint probably doesn’t block it going on to draft
jonas’I do not feel comfortable to approve this as (quoting XEP-0001):
> A wire protocol intended to be used as a standard part of XMPP technologies. [13]
danieljonas’, i have no hard feelings regarding the track
SamWhitedI'm also okay with adding a "I'm using styling" hint or even a "this message isn't intended to be styled" hint, but I'd like to just state for the record that this is unnecessary bloat. Also, I took great care to make sure the grammar was well defined so that you can write a compliant parser, but there won't be a formal grammer because I don't know anything well enough tow rite one. I do feel strongly that it belongs to the standard track.
SamWhited"to write", even.
jonas’even Informational is stretching it IMO, but I’d accept that as a middle-ground. A non-XSF resource would be more fitting for UI things (which this is in daniels line of argument)
SamWhited</author-opinion>
ZashOverloading body without negotiation is problematic
dwdjonas’, What on your list is blocking?
dwdZash, Overloading or hinting? (Given Daniel's observation that people literally type this stuff anyway)
sonnyhas left
dwdUgh.
dwdNegoation or hinting, I mean to ask.
Zashdwd: Either is better that nothing
jonas’dwd, I can be persuaded to accept the overloading of <body/> in this specific way if and only if an opt-in is given. The lack of formal grammar is not blocking if implementors agree that it is doable without (which is probably more something to deal with for moving to Final)
jonas’if an opt-in is present, it’s also more clearly wire protocol belonging on standards track.
SamWhitedIt will definitely never be opt-in because that defeats the whole point. The *reason* it did such a good job of getting client adoption and fixing that part of the ecosystem is that it wasn't opt-in, it was just telling you how you could apply styling to things users already do.
SamWhitedIt could be opt-out per message, but that's all that I'd be comfortable with there.
jonas’opt-in is the only thing I’m going to be comfortable with.
dwdjonas’, So if it's merely hinting and not an explicit negotiation, then if I type the same stuff myself, am I *not* XMPP conformant anymore?
sonnyhas joined
jonas’what the opt-in would be signalling, in my mind, is: "The user observed that the message would be styled in this way before sending, e.g. by having the input UI control display styling inline."
jonas’and by opt-in I mean <this-is-styling xmlns="…"/>
dwdjonas’, I could see a <styled xmlns='...' active='boolean'/> around to signal whether *this* is bold or not. But given I can type it anyway, and in many clients it already will be shown bold heuristically, I can't see a problem with it being hinted rather than negotiation.
flowSorry for interrupting, but I've to run in 5m. And missed the spot when you where discussing it.
One thing re 4b: I talked with pep and wondered if the form field's registry entry should include data form validation information. In particular, that the value's datatype is xs:anyURI. I think we should ideally discuss this *before* adding the registry entry, because, changing it afterwards could be considered a breaking change. Hence you may want to re-consider. I think pep (or I) would be happy to add that additional information to the registry submission.
jonas’dwd, maybe that’s the misunderstanding. By opt-in, I simply mean a flag inside the <message/>. It’s not necessary to go full-blown "only do this if disco#info has something" or something like the chat session negotiation which existed somewheer.
dwdjonas’, Ah, right. Gotcha.
jonas’flow, does the registry support schema stuff? In that case that sounds useful, can you make a note in the PR?
dwdjonas’, That would move me from +0 to +1, as well, and if it also provides a way to explicitly state that there's no styling, that'd be great, too.
jonas’Zash, do you agree with that?
jonas’then we’d have a clear way forward for the author
SamWhitedI'll add the no styling hint, but the "this is styling" hint will completely break the entire point of this and I am absolutely against adding it.
Zashjonas’: A hint? Yes, that's fine with me.
jonas’ok, moving on then, we have one more item on the agenda
dwdSamWhited, Noted, but I think you're in the rough here.
jonas’4d) Issue Last Call for XEP-0338
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0338.html
Abstract: This specification provides an XML mapping for translating the RFC 5888 SDP Grouping Framework to Jingle
danieli don’t understand why it breaks the point
SamWhitedI can write it up for the millionth time, but it makes this much harder to implement, much less consistent, and generally breaks the XEP to add a "this is styling" hint.
Zashdaniel: same
jonas’order please
SamWhitedBut we can discuss this on list for the millionth time, sorry for taking time in the council meeting.
jonas’we can continue the discussion in AOB if everyone agrees to extending the meeting time, or xsf@ or on-list
daniel+1 on 4d
flowjonas’, I'd have to check, but i'll be gone in a few minutes. I'd like to discuss this, as it appears we do not have a single form field in the registry which uses data form validation annotations. Likely because nobody every did it. And IMHO we should allow for it, as it's usefull information. Will add a remark to the PR. Happy to discuss this later in greater detail. bbl
Zash+1 for LC
jonas’+1 for XEP-0338
danieli’m expecting this have similiar outcome as the other two jingle specs we called
dwd+1 to LC.
danielfew but positive feedback
jonas’flow, we’re still pending on Ge0rGs vote either way. Please add a note to the PR so that the Editors will defer merging and we can re-do the vote in case you find that you have to change it
ZashI'm almost out of battery fyi
jonas’5) Pending votes
jonas’none
jonas’(except Ge0rG now)
jonas’6) Date of next
jonas’+1w wfm
daniel+1w wfm
dwd+1 wwfm
ZashWfm
jonas’7) AOB
jonas’since Zash is out of battery and we’re running out of time, I’d like to skip this one
jonas’ since Zash is out of battery and we’re running out of time anyways, I’d like to skip this one
dwdHappy to.
jonas’8) Ite Meeting Est
jonas’thanks all
ZashThanks
jonas’quick note that I sent a meeting time scheduling thing for the routing stuff (cc @ Ge0rG )
dwdThanks jonas’!
jonas’SamWhited, I note you’re not in xsf@, any reason for that?
dwdBTW, why would one ever block a Last Call?
jonas’dwd, if it’s 90% TODO maybe?
SamWhitedjonas’: too noisey and distracting; happy to join temporarily if we want to have this discussion in there
dwdjonas’, But you could raise that in Last Call?
danielSamWhited, i don’t understand how <styling boolean/> breaks the purpose of the XEP. it allows receiving clients to have three different modes. style everything, style everything but <styled false>; only style <styled true/>
jonas’SamWhited, ok, feel free to continue the discussion here for now then
danielsending clients would have to support ever sending <styled false/>
danielif they didn’t want to
jonas’dwd, sure, but ... yeah, I mean, it doesn’t make much sense to me either. I’d somehow expect LC to be editor-driven while CFE would be council-driven, but it seems to be the other way ’round
SamWhiteddaniel: I don't actually understand the three modes
danieland just adding <styled true/> is free
SamWhitedWhat is the default if no styled=false or styled=true is present?
danielrelatively
danielthe receiving client can decide
dwdSamWhited, The default is "Implementation defined", which is what it is now.
jonas’SamWhited, "sending client doesn’t know what it’s doing, use a local user/implementation preference"
jonas’while styled=true is "sending client knows what it’s doing and emphatically agrees with this being displayed fancy" and styled=false is "nope, this must not be styled ever"
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
SamWhitedSo now we have some clients forcing styling on, some forcing it off, and some that we just do our own thing for. From the users perspective, that's just going to be similar messages from different contacts or even the same contacts when they switch clients randomly being styled or not
dwdOne advantage is that if the client receives something *broken, it can know whether this is genuinely broken or just not actually styling.
SamWhitedIf my clients default is "no styling unless styling=true" and one contact sends me "this is *styled* <styling=true>" and another sends me "this is *styled*" but they just typed it, that just looks confusing that one is styled and the other isn't.
dwdSamWhited, But one of your clients might not do styling anyway, right now.
SamWhitedAlso, how does this work in MUCs? If one user quotes a message and they apply styling=true and another replies and quotes it but their client applies styling=false, now there are two replies that represent the same quote differently
dwdSamWhited, So I don't see what changes.
SamWhiteddwd: but they would or would not apply it equally for all messages from all contacts, muc participants, etc.
dwdSamWhited, No.
danielSamWhited, well *your* client could still default to styled if there are no hints
jonas’(I assume Conversations will)
jonas’(at least for a transition period)
danielprobably
SamWhiteddaniel: that's even worse, now different clients that I use will have different defaults. On conversations it might default to styling=true, but when I switch over to dino it defaults to styling=false and it looks different
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
jonas’the recommendation to default to styling=true can be put in a place where client developers look for "good UX tips" *hinthint*
SamWhitedThis adds an entire massive amount of uncertainty and possibility for breakage. Even from the sending clients perspective it adds confusion and different ways to implement things
jonas’how does this add uncertainty for *sending* clients?
SamWhitedFor example, if I click a "bold" button and it wraps the text in styling directives, I thin it's pretty obvious that styling=true should bge added to the message
SamWhitedHowever, if I just type "check out this *styling*" what should it do?
pep.re flow's suggestion on 157, I'm happy to add the validation thing but I have no clue how
SamWhitedShould it add styling=true? Do nothing and let it be inconsistently displayed between the remote users clients?
jonas’SamWhited, that depends: does your input field show it as boldface inside the input field? if so, styling=true, otherwise no.
jonas’pep., I hear flow will look that up
dwdjonas’, +1 on that.
pep.And re 393 hint, I think that's pretty much useless
daniel> SamWhited, that depends: does your input field show it as boldface inside the input field? if so, styling=true, otherwise no.
+1
dwdSamWhited, Your client should be expressing the user's intent.
pep.Clients will just put that in the payload all the time and we're back to normal
dwdpep., Isn't that OK?
pep.To be back to normal?
moparisthebestclients don't know the user's intent
ZashI don't see how making things more explicit makes things uncertain.
moparisthebestI'm certainly not going to press any 'bold' button, I'll just continue writing *like this* because that's how I've always written everything
pep.moparisthebest, that's their issue, they could very well know if they allowed it in the input format
SamWhitedZash: because it's not making them explicit, having a "styling=false" alone is making things more explicit, but having both is introducing even more possible states that you can't predict.
dwdpep., I mean, if clients put the styling hint in all the time, that just means they're explicitly intending the message to be styled.
moparisthebestI get the impression people think this XEP documents some new and exciting input format, and if so, it would indeed be bad, but it documents existing functionality in most clients across most protocols since as far as anyone can remember
pep.I'm gonna repeat myself for the nth time, https://lab.louiz.org/poezio/poezio/issues/3455#note_7769 this is how you do a proper input format, and it's also possible on mobile
pep.dwd, and what in the message actually is styled?
SamWhitedNo matter what if things don't support styling obviously those will display differently. We can't fix that part except by making the styling characters something people are used to seeing anyways (which was the point of this XEP, they're already doing this anyways so that part is fine)
moparisthebestemail, irc, usenet, everything else, right? where you just type in your styling
SamWhitedAny randomization of how things are displayed on top of that is a bad thing.
dwdSamWhited, So what's the randomization you're anticipating?
moparisthebestmany xmpp clients even already implemented this, gajim did for instance
SamWhiteddwd: I just explained it. It now matters if we have support on *both* sides of the connectio, and we have tons more states that we could be in
SamWhitedEg. the situation in a MUC I just posited.
moparisthebestpep., *this* always worked in gajim
pep."this"?
pep.Ah "*this*"
moparisthebestbolded *this*
pep.So because one implementation chose stars to use bold means it's good to put in a standard?
pep.And it's never ever gonna change
moparisthebestnot this one implementation
pep.Because you have the world of god
SamWhitedJust having a way to disable it is fine, that lets us express user intent without adding a third undefined state where we're not sure what will happen
pep.Because you have the word of god
moparisthebestpep. also a ton of other xmpp clients, most irc clients, most email clients etc etc etc
dwdSamWhited, But the undefined state is the only current one in '393.
jonas’SamWhited, we’ve been over this.
jonas’I have seen your arguments, I just disagree with them.
pep.I also disagree (but I think that's already explicit)
pep.And I agree with jonas’ points for -1
SamWhiteddwd: sort of. Right now it's just the only state, it's not a weird in-between.
SamWhitedJust adding a styling=false *does* make that state more explicit, so I'm okay with that.
SamWhitedAdding styling=true *and* styling=false makes that middle ground confusing and undefined.
moparisthebestpep., jonas’ , again it seems like you guys view this as some new protocol, instead of simply documenting what always existed without being documented
jonas’moparisthebest, just because something existing doesn’t mean it’s a good thing to endorse.
pep.this ^
jonas’moparisthebest, just because something exists doesn’t mean it’s a good thing to endorse.
jonas’you can document all you want -- but not with XSF endorsement.
moparisthebestit doesn't matter if you endorse it or not, it exists, you'll never change it
pep.moparisthebest, also, nothing in what you're saying here forces you to butcher the wire format
moparisthebestit'd be nice if clients would have some place to look for consistancy, rather than try to figure out what other clients do, isn't that the whole point of standards?
moparisthebestthis xep isn't butchering any wire format, this has always been passed over the wire like this because people type it this way
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
pep.Ok it's the same nonsense as before over again
jonas’moparisthebest, we all agree that we need a force of people who can actually reason about UI choices and know things there. The XSF is (currently) not that organisation.
moparisthebestagain, whether the XSF officially agrees to adopt this or not, it doesn't change the fact that it's always worked this way and will continue to do so
moparisthebestjust makes it look dumb to not officially recognize that
jonas’moparisthebest, I know that, and I’m fine with that.
jonas’the first part either way
jonas’the second I don’t necessarily agree with
moparisthebestsome of it is in fact super valuable
jonas’I feel this discussion is, once more, in a dead end.
jonas’and I’m going to attend to other things now, just FTR
moparisthebestI've seen a lot of clients in the past, various protocols, but they *remove* the little stars for bold etc, and can accidentally change meaning
moparisthebestthis suggests you don't do that, which is helpful
SamWhitedTrying to understand peoples opinions (mostly moparisthebest, jonas’, and pep. I think): is it your opinion that it's okay for informational right now because it documents what clients are already doing and just tries to make them use more consistent rules, but only for standards track if it adds some sort of hints?
pep.I'm just against it as long as there's no effort wrt. wire format. But I'm not council anyway
pep.Hinting is not gonna fix much
jonas’SamWhited, I think it’s not *okay* for Informational, but I *maybe* could see this as a possible middle-ground. I’m not sure about Zashes opinion on that.
moparisthebestmy opinion is it's a standard whether you *really wish* it wasn't or not...
SamWhitedpep. even if it were just informational?
pep.SamWhited, what does that change
jonas’pep., Standards Track is for Wire Format, Informational is "the other stuff"
undefinedhas left
pep.It doesn't even document what people use, it documents something that somebody wanted to force on users
pep.(that is, people use some kind of markdown)
jonas’I’m still not sure that Informational should be a dump for "'random' UI things documented for Instant Messaging clients which happen to use XMPP"
undefinedhas joined
jonas’I’m still not sure that Informational should be a place for "'random' UI things documented for Instant Messaging clients which happen to use XMPP"
SamWhitedWhat do you mean by "force on users"?
moparisthebestpep., I suspect the clients that already do this are far greater than the ones that never did...
SamWhitedI thought informational was explicitly for documenting what clients were already doing and that's why people mentioned it, but the XSFs spec levels never made any sense to me. I guess I should go reread 0001 or whatever
pep.SamWhited, well you did specifically choose to step away from markdown to prevent devs from using markdown parsers right
pep.Whereas users ask for "markdown" syntax
jonas’moparisthebest, the last call didn’t bring up any except Conversations and Dino (partial implementation) I think.
SamWhitedpep. sort of. That was part of the decision, but also I just immitated what many clients were already doing (which wasn't markdown)
jonas’moparisthebest, so I doubt that claim.
moparisthebestjonas’, gajim did it before it was a XEP, still does it last time I checked
pep.SamWhited, ok. Well now if I want to promote another syntax on my client anyway, I can't
SamWhitedpep. also, I don't think users know what markdown actually is since they keep calling this markdown anyways (though of course, if they tried to implement it it wouldn't work and they'd realize their mistake)
jonas’moparisthebest, gajim does quotations and strikethrough and stuff? (I don’t use gajim)
SamWhitedpep. why not?
SamWhitedpep. isn't that the same as any other standard? We had XHTML-IM, but some people implemented it and some implemented something like this, and I think Xabber's web thing actually had its own proprietary spec, etc.
moparisthebestpep., jonas’ , check out thunderbird https://burtrum.org/up/6e1978be-53dd-4036-afd0-c0ec683e19c2/open-screeny-5017.png
jonas’moparisthebest, that’s not '393, it doesn’t define // or __
jonas’out for real now
moparisthebestthen maybe it should :)
SamWhitedjonas’: yes, that was part of the point, everybody was doing something vaguely similar to 0393, but they all had slightly different rules. This tried to standardize those rules based on what I saw the most clients doing.
pep.SamWhited, because you're not signaling yours and my users are going to receive payloads from other clients are gonna see different sigils and then complain they don't see things formatted in their client.
moparisthebestjonas’, pep. , kiwi (most popular web irc client) the one freenode hosts https://burtrum.org/up/95378a1e-3720-455d-b33f-94192f69e022/open-screeny-5123.png
jonas’moparisthebest, that’s not an XMPP client.
moparisthebestright, again, just documenting how *everyone* used text messaging before XMPP even existed
pep.SamWhited: so I have to parse supposedly meaningless text (styling) and try to convert into my markup
moparisthebestthat's my point
jonas’you’re good at this. I need to physically step away from my XMPP client now.
pep.So that I emulate other users sending my markup
pep.Which is meh
pep.Whether if you properly signalied on the wire where you markup is I wouldn't have to worry about clumsily parsing text
SamWhitedpep. I'm sorry, I didn't understand that at all, can you rephrase that first message that started "because you're not signaling yours"? Sorry
pep.Styling is not being signaled. Nowhere it says "this is styling" and "what is styling in there"
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
SamWhitedRight, that's what we're discussing. I got that far.
moparisthebestbecause people don't signal that, they are just typing, remember that pep.
SamWhitedWait, are you just worried that if your client doesn't support it users are going to ask you to support it?
pep.moparisthebest, please stop. You don't seem to make a difference between users and clients
moparisthebestpep., because with this there is no difference
pep.SamWhited, I'm worried that I can't support anything else because I'll have to deal with styling anyway
pep. s/worried/annoyed/
pep.moparisthebest, that's where you are wrong. Or let's say we disagree
SamWhitedpep. why would you have to deal with styling anyways? You don't have to support it in your client if you don't want to
pep.SamWhited, I do? Say I support NewMarkup (my custom format), I properly apply markup for it in the UI, and I don't apply markup for styling when receiving
pep.Users would probably wonder why. What I would prefer to do is convert the received styling into NewMarkup so it also gets displayed properly
pep.But that's not possible as long as styling is not signaled
SamWhitedpep. I don't understand how having a hint helps with that. If you support converting styling to new markup, parse the message as styling just as if you were going to display it and then convert it to your markup
pep.Well the "parse the message as styling" is not really defined anywhere
SamWhitedOr, if there is a styling=false hint, you could not convert it (which is the hint I'm okay with adding).
MattJHow about we just don't standardize this? The argument is that "users are doing it", but users are inconsistent
moparisthebestpep., my question is, if I type something like *this* into my client, how would it know whether I wanted *this* to be styled or not? in fact I sometimes change my mind, here I want it styled, if I pasted some code I wouldn't want it styled, does that make sense?
pep.I don't know what's styling in your message
SamWhitedpep. it is defined as "if you support styling, parse messages as styling"
pep.SamWhited, and what is styling in your message?
moparisthebestie, the client can't know whether the user wants it styled or not, that's why it's *great* to have rules like "leave styling marks"
SamWhitedpep. the entire message, always.
pep."> <" is that a quote, is that an emoji
SamWhitedpep. that is a quote, the spec defines how you parse that. If you want it to be an emoji, that's fair, which is why I'm okay adding a styling=false hint.
pep.We've been making the same arguments over two years, I'm not sure what more I can do
pep.SamWhited, but then what about: "> < *foo*"
pep."*foo*" would not be parsed as bold.
theTeddhas joined
SamWhitedpep. why not?
pep.Because you sent styling=false
SamWhitedoh, then that's not a quote or bold because you sent styling=false, so don't convert it into your NewMarkup
SamWhitedoooh, or are you suggesting that you want half the message to be styled, but part of it not to be? eg. that should be a quote in your markup, but not bolded foo?
pep.I don't like the either all or nothing "feature"
SamWhitedahh, gotcha, sorry, that's what I didn't understand about this entire conversation.
pep.That's been my pitch for 2 years. Thanks for reading :(
SamWhitedpep. yes, I know, but from your previous message it seemed like you were making a completely different argument.
SamWhitedMy mistake, I understand now.
theTeddpep's point is that styling should really be an input method, not wire format; any formatting that's then applied becomes wire format using whatever-rich-markup; the fact we're dealing with this at all is because it's already used and some clients want to be clever and apply the styling automatically
pep.theTedd, thanks :p
pep.SamWhited, which is why I think the hint is not gonna help (not much at least, it's a small improvement)
SamWhitedI think they should apply it automatically, but if we add styling=false as a hint, clients could always add that if they wanted and only disable it if the user clicked the "bold" button or the "style this message" button explicitly
SamWhitedSo that seems fine if that's something you want to do.
pep.The hint is not sufficient
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
pep.https://lab.louiz.org/poezio/poezio/issues/3455#note_7769 Have you read this? Replace "XHTML-IM" but "some wire format" if you prefer
SamWhitedpep. I was responding to theTedd's thing, you're right that it's not sufficient to style only part of the message but it't not for that
pep.https://lab.louiz.org/poezio/poezio/issues/3455#note_7769 Have you read this? Replace "XHTML-IM" by "some wire format" if you prefer
theTeddthe second point is 'what' should they apply automatically? obviously you say 0393, but a client may support another -- the hint would indicate which
SamWhitedpep. yes, you can do that just fine with styling. You parse the message as its being typed, and if you get a "bold" or whatever you convert it to your XHTML, that seems fine.
pep.SamWhited, you can't actually do that with styling
pep.Because you're gonna send "*foo*" in both cases
SamWhitedIf you hit backspace, remove your internal XHTML styling for that one element and don't update it anymore
SamWhited(unless it changes)
pep.Ah you're talking about a proper wire format. Sure
SamWhitedYou are right that remote clients that support XHTML-IM vs. remote clients that support styling will show different things
SamWhitedBut styling doesn't do fonts or sizes or whatever else XHTML-IM did anyways, it's not an exact replica, so this will be true no matter what.
pep.I'd be happy just having what styling does with a proper wire format. That is, styling only used as input format
SamWhitedYes but that would make things far more complicated, and unnecessarily so when it works fine most of the time.
SamWhitedAnd you can do what that issue wants today easily enough, so why add more complexity?
pep.more complicated, surely. But that doesn't lock us up with this format and all its disadvantages
pep.I can't do that already, since I can't parse what I receive properly
SamWhitedYou're not locked up with this format as you say anyways, feel free to do your own thing.
theTeddSamWhited, what's the complication? either apply styling (hint=true) or don't (hint=false), or do what you already did when hints didn't exist (no hint)
SamWhitedpep. why can't you parse it? Parse the whole message, convert it to XHTML-IM, remove any HTML around bits where the user hits backspace, and call it a day
pep.SamWhited, same issue, I don't know in your message what is styling and what isn't
SamWhitedtheTedd: I was talking about pep.'s suggestion that we add wire format around all the styled sections. hint=false is fine and doesn't add significant complexity.
SamWhitedpep. it's all styling unless they hit backspace right after entering the text.
theTeddSamWhited, okay, but why is true a difficulty?
pep.SamWhited, that's fine when sending but not when receiving
SamWhitedtheTedd: true isn't difficult, it's just unnecessary and makes there be lots more states
SamWhitedpep. okay, we were talking about sending I thought. When receiving if you support XHTML use that, if not, the whole message is styling because that's the way styling works.
theTeddSamWhited, there are three states: true, false, none -- none is what already exists
pep.SamWhited, right, and that's why I say we're locked up with styling
SamWhitedpep. so don't support styling if you don't like it, I don't see what the problem is.
SamWhitedor just support it as an input method and then send XHTML-IM or whatever.
theTeddpep., this is documenting what's already used, it's never going to turn into a real markup wire format and people are always going to do *this*
pep.theTedd, by encouraging client devs not to do anything about it
pep."yeah it's fine, while you could help fix the state, just put stuff on the wire who cares"
pep."yeah it's fine, while you could help fix the current state, just put stuff on the wire who cares"
theTeddI agree, but devs are lazy and will take a library you throw at them when it exists
SamWhitedpep. you're assuming that everyone else thinks this is bad somehow too, but we're not trying to just stick everyone with the current thing to be jerks, we're documenting it because we believe that it's good enough as is and works well in practice.
pep.SamWhited, I'm not saying this is not good for users
Ge0rGYou can't fix the current state, you only can fix a future that comes after you created a XEP and got it widely implemented
pep.I'm saying users only care about the input format
pep.I'm not sure what's wrong about this statement
pep.And if we agree, can we move towards this please
SamWhitedI agree that users don't care what's happening behind the scenes, they just want to type *bold* and see their text be bolded.
pep.yes
theTeddideally, we should, but right now people are doing (and will continue to do) do inline text formatting, so that does still need to be handled
SamWhitedWhich is why the fact that their text is being sent behind the scenes and then parsed as-is is not something users care about and works fine.
pep.SamWhited, but why encourage devs not to care about what goes on the wire
theTedd'fine' -- it's hacky at best
SamWhitedpep. why should they care if it works fine?
pep.I'm not sur ewhat's to gain here
SamWhitedLet's refocus this discussion:
pep.it doesn't "work fine"
pep.Just like theTedd said it's hacky at best
SamWhitedI *think* the fundamental disagreement here is that if I type "this is *bold* and this is *not bold*" you think the second one should have the option of not being bold, right? Or is there something else?
pep.yes
pep.this
SamWhitedokay, so let's ignore wire format, user input methods, etc. since those are just consequences of wanting this feature.
Wojtekhas joined
pep.Well "this feature" also possibly being accidental
SamWhitedInstead, let's figure out exactly what features we want, then we can figure out if it's possible to do it with the current thing or if we need tons of wire format.
pep.I type something and it gets interpreted wrongly
SamWhitedpep. I didn't undestand that, what did you mean by "being accidental"?
pep."> <" being just one example
SamWhitedSo having a styling=false hint fixes that example.
pep.Just got another example on another channel with gajim interpreting received ":/" as an emoji (when it was part of or URI: foo://bar). Not styling, but same kind of problem to me
SamWhitedAlso, I suspect that it's rare enough in practice that we don't have to care.
pep.SamWhited, it "fixes" that example if that's the only thing in the message
sonnyhas left
theTeddpep., you can't fix 0393 to do that - it's not going to happen
SamWhitedpep. and I'm saying that's not a huge problem if one message on rare occasions has to have no styling because you want to display something that would conflict.
pep.theTedd, I know and that's why I don't want 393 :)
theTeddSamWhited, you're defending 0393 when pep is really arguing for an alternative
SamWhitedtheTedd: yes, I'm defending it saying that we don't need an alternative, or that if pep. wants one accepting 393 doesn't stop him from writing one.
pep.The thing is that you're also forcing 393 on me (as a user, and client dev)
theTeddpep's argument is that providing this reduces the motivation to do anything else because "it largely works"
pep.And I'd like to prevent that
SamWhitedAgain, I'm really not. You don't have to implement 393.
pep.But I can't stop receiving maybe-393 payloads
undefinedhas left
SamWhitedpep. you can't stop receiving those anyways, people are *already* typing asterisks and what not.
SamWhitedIt doesn't matter if the spec exists or not.
theTeddhint=true would at least make it explicit what you're receiving
undefinedhas joined
pep.SamWhited, and if their client supported something that had a proper wire format, I would know
pep.And I could interpret them differently
pep.So yes in a way you're forcing me to implement 393 to be able to parse it and convert it to something else. Even if it might not be a 393 payload
SamWhitedYou can already do that. If you get your other wire format, interpret it as that. If not, interpret it as styling unless it has a hint=false.
SamWhitedOr don't implement styling at all and only support your other wire format if you get that.
susmit88has joined
pep.I'm not sure where I'm not clear on this
pep.Why don't you see you're actually forcing me to implement it
pep.well, "you", clients implementing 393
pep.You by extension
SamWhitedLots of clients already implement 393, it's just not called that and they all have slightly different rules.
SamWhitedThis spec doesn't change that.
pep.Let's just talk about the spec
SamWhitedThe spec doesn't change anything, so it's not forcing you to implement or not implement anything.
pep.Ok I'm giving up sorry
pep.It's being vetoed anyway so..
paulhas left
SamWhitedPossibly stupid question: does anyone know if there's a name for the emoji pep. mentioned? ("> <")? I'm just trying to figure out what it is so I can use it in an example maybe
SamWhitedI've never seen it before
theTeddkaomoji
SamWhitedThanks. I don't see that one in this list of kaomoji, but I'll keep looking
pep.😖😫 < some variant of these
SamWhitedI see a few other faces that use ><, but they're all wrapped in quotes, or don't have a space after the ">" so they wouldn't be quotes anyways
SamWhitedwrapped in parens, I mean
theTeddthey tend be much more complex with various unicode characters
pep.←(>▽<)ﾉ
SamWhitedpep. that wouldn't conflict or be a quote, so no problem with that one
pep.SamWhited, not sure what you're trying to do here anyway
pep.it's just one example
SamWhitedpep. I know, I want to use it in an example in the XEP of disabling the styling hint
SamWhitedSo I was just trying to find what that emoji represented, but I can't find it anywhere
SamWhitedIf the way it's actually written doesn't actually conflict, it's not a good example for me to use
theTeddthe 'real' way might not, but people lazily type >< because it's quicker
Zash>_>
SamWhitedah, gotcha. Okay, I'll just use it in the example then as is and say that it's an emoji without naming it. Thanks.
pep.Also a quote from Zash in dino@ the other day: "That's how it works on *nix afaik, $LANG and $LC_* etc"
Zash😒️
pep.And I can grep through logs if you want a lot more
SamWhitedpep. that's okay, I just needed one and the emoji example is a good one to use since people will probably understand it
SamWhitedthanks
paulhas joined
sonnyhas joined
sonnyhas left
susmit88has left
sonnyhas joined
susmit88has joined
theTeddhas left
susmit88has left
susmit88has joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
pep.hmm so what's the status of the 157 PR? "Accepted but"?
jonas’pep., accepted, but flow wants to investigate whether he wants to improve it before we get it into Active
larmahas left
jonas’(in which case we’ll have to re-vote)
jonas’oh, also, Ge0rGs vote is pending
jonas’so it’s *not* accepted at this stage
jonas’but even if Ge0rG had already not-vetoed it, The Editors™ would delay the merge until flow reports back
pep.should I change it to WIP or sth? (after Ge0rg votes?)
pep.or blocked or..
Ge0rGShould I just delay my vote?
larmahas joined
Davidhas joined
bearhas left
jonas’pep., there is a "Draft" button
jonas’that would probably be appropriate
jonas’also, for the record, we voted on
d902893
jonas’also, for the record, we voted on d902893
jonas’having it written down here makes it easier to keep track when re-reviewing the thing
pep.jonas’: yeah that's what I meant
Zashwhat's that, a case where using github doesn't make things better? :)