XMPP Council - 2020-05-27


  1. paul has left
  2. susmit88 has joined
  3. debacle has left
  4. Wojtek has left
  5. daniel has left
  6. daniel has joined
  7. kusoneko has left
  8. kusoneko has joined
  9. stpeter has left
  10. susmit88 has left
  11. susmit88 has joined
  12. stpeter has joined
  13. susmit88 has left
  14. susmit88 has joined
  15. stpeter has left
  16. stpeter has joined
  17. Tobias has joined
  18. susmit88 has left
  19. susmit88 has joined
  20. stpeter has left
  21. stpeter has joined
  22. stpeter has left
  23. paul has joined
  24. stpeter has joined
  25. stpeter has left
  26. kusoneko has left
  27. kusoneko has joined
  28. stpeter has joined
  29. stpeter has left
  30. 3ch0 has joined
  31. bear has left
  32. 3ch0 has left
  33. stpeter has joined
  34. stpeter has left
  35. stpeter has joined
  36. bear has joined
  37. Tobias has left
  38. Tobias has joined
  39. stpeter has left
  40. daniel has left
  41. daniel has joined
  42. daniel has left
  43. daniel has joined
  44. stpeter has joined
  45. stpeter has left
  46. larma has left
  47. stpeter has joined
  48. larma has joined
  49. debacle has joined
  50. stpeter has left
  51. larma has left
  52. larma has joined
  53. stpeter has joined
  54. stpeter has left
  55. stpeter has joined
  56. stpeter has left
  57. stpeter has joined
  58. eta has left
  59. eta has joined
  60. stpeter has left
  61. stpeter has joined
  62. stpeter has left
  63. stpeter has joined
  64. hotspud has left
  65. hotspud has joined
  66. vaulor has left
  67. SouL has left
  68. vaulor has joined
  69. SouL has joined
  70. stpeter has left
  71. Zash has left
  72. Zash has joined
  73. stpeter has joined
  74. stpeter has left
  75. stpeter has joined
  76. undefined has left
  77. stpeter has left
  78. undefined has joined
  79. stpeter has joined
  80. stpeter has left
  81. eta has left
  82. eta has joined
  83. daniel has left
  84. daniel has joined
  85. daniel has left
  86. daniel has joined
  87. stpeter has joined
  88. moparisthebest has left
  89. daniel has left
  90. daniel has joined
  91. daniel has left
  92. daniel has joined
  93. daniel has left
  94. daniel has joined
  95. daniel has left
  96. daniel has joined
  97. daniel has left
  98. daniel has joined
  99. daniel has left
  100. daniel has joined
  101. daniel has left
  102. daniel has joined
  103. daniel has left
  104. daniel has joined
  105. daniel has left
  106. daniel has joined
  107. daniel has left
  108. daniel has joined
  109. daniel has left
  110. daniel has joined
  111. daniel has left
  112. daniel has joined
  113. eta has left
  114. eta has joined
  115. daniel has left
  116. daniel has joined
  117. dwd has joined
  118. undefined has left
  119. undefined has joined
  120. undefined has left
  121. undefined has joined
  122. moparisthebest has joined
  123. undefined has left
  124. undefined has joined
  125. undefined has left
  126. undefined has joined
  127. sonny has left
  128. sonny has joined
  129. undefined has left
  130. jonas’ 1) Roll Call
  131. daniel hi
  132. jonas’ (sorry for the slight delay)
  133. undefined has joined
  134. Zash Ice cream
  135. jonas’ Chips!
  136. dwd Hiya.
  137. jonas’ 2) Agenda Bashing
  138. jonas’ fippo wants to have XEP-0338 LC’d
  139. jonas’ I see no reason why not to add this to today’s agenda, so I’m going to do that
  140. jonas’ anything beyond that?
  141. daniel oh yes that makes sense
  142. Zash 338 is?
  143. daniel i forgot to ask for that during my round of jingle related calls
  144. jonas’ XEP-0338: Jingle Grouping Framework
  145. daniel +1 for calling
  146. jonas’ 3) Editor’s Update - Calls in Progress - CFE for XEP-0050 (ends at 2020-06-09) - Expired/Expiring calls: - LC for XEP-0393 (ended yesterday)
  147. jonas’ 4) Items for voting
  148. jonas’ 4a) Proposed XMPP Extension: Channel Binding Capability URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/xep-sasl-cb-types.html Abstract: This specification allows servers to annouce their supported SASL channel-binding types to clients.
  149. jonas’ on-list
  150. jonas’ (though at a first glance, it looks better than the other one)
  151. dwd I note this is Florian writing up his suggestion. I'm +1 on this.
  152. Zash +1
  153. daniel +1
  154. jonas’ ok, it’s very massively short
  155. jonas’ +1
  156. jonas’ moving on
  157. dwd (I mean, this is exactly what we were all saying we were happy with last week, so...)
  158. jonas’ 4b) PR#949: XEP-0157: Add status-addresses registrar entry URL: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/949
  159. dwd +1
  160. jonas’ there was some discussion in context of this on-list, see: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2020-May/037443.html
  161. daniel +1
  162. jonas’ I’m still not certain that this is a good place for that type of info, but it certainly doesn’t harm
  163. jonas’ so +1
  164. Zash +1, assuming this is how registries work
  165. susmit88 has left
  166. jonas’ that’s not how registries work, but we don’t have a working registry, so this is the second-best thing
  167. dwd Yes, some suggestion of whether this should be in DNS or .well-known, but it feels like putting it here is a necessary first step.
  168. jonas’ Zash, do you want to change your vote based on that bit of info? ;)
  169. Zash Nah, +1 still
  170. jonas’ alright
  171. 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.
  172. dwd So I quite like this. But I'm aware that lots of people do not.
  173. 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.
  174. Zash I agree with jonas’
  175. dwd The 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.
  176. 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.
  177. jonas’ but this should not be on Standards Track as is. I’d be happy to put this to Informational-Active actually.
  178. jonas’ oh, and I forgot to mention another reason for -1: - Lack of explicit formal grammar to write a compliant parser.
  179. dwd Anyway - I think I'm +0 on this advancing to Draft
  180. jonas’ 15:11:10 Zash> I agree with jonas’ shall I record that as a seconding of my -1?
  181. 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
  182. Zash jonas’: sure.
  183. dwd daniel, I know it doesn't need signalling or negotiation, but I think it would be nicer if it did.
  184. dwd daniel, Also, how would you feel about Informational/Active here?
  185. daniel i'm not against adding a hint <hey-there-im-using-393/>
  186. 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
  187. 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
  188. daniel adding that hint probably doesn’t block it going on to draft
  189. 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]
  190. daniel jonas’, i have no hard feelings regarding the track
  191. SamWhited I'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.
  192. SamWhited "to write", even.
  193. 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)
  194. SamWhited </author-opinion>
  195. Zash Overloading body without negotiation is problematic
  196. dwd jonas’, What on your list is blocking?
  197. dwd Zash, Overloading or hinting? (Given Daniel's observation that people literally type this stuff anyway)
  198. sonny has left
  199. dwd Ugh.
  200. dwd Negoation or hinting, I mean to ask.
  201. Zash dwd: Either is better that nothing
  202. 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)
  203. jonas’ if an opt-in is present, it’s also more clearly wire protocol belonging on standards track.
  204. SamWhited It 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.
  205. SamWhited It could be opt-out per message, but that's all that I'd be comfortable with there.
  206. jonas’ opt-in is the only thing I’m going to be comfortable with.
  207. dwd jonas’, 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?
  208. sonny has joined
  209. 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."
  210. jonas’ and by opt-in I mean <this-is-styling xmlns="…"/>
  211. dwd jonas’, 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.
  212. flow Sorry 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.
  213. 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.
  214. dwd jonas’, Ah, right. Gotcha.
  215. jonas’ flow, does the registry support schema stuff? In that case that sounds useful, can you make a note in the PR?
  216. dwd jonas’, 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.
  217. jonas’ Zash, do you agree with that?
  218. jonas’ then we’d have a clear way forward for the author
  219. SamWhited I'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.
  220. Zash jonas’: A hint? Yes, that's fine with me.
  221. jonas’ ok, moving on then, we have one more item on the agenda
  222. dwd SamWhited, Noted, but I think you're in the rough here.
  223. 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
  224. daniel i don’t understand why it breaks the point
  225. SamWhited I 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.
  226. Zash daniel: same
  227. jonas’ order please
  228. SamWhited But we can discuss this on list for the millionth time, sorry for taking time in the council meeting.
  229. jonas’ we can continue the discussion in AOB if everyone agrees to extending the meeting time, or xsf@ or on-list
  230. daniel +1 on 4d
  231. flow jonas’, 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
  232. Zash +1 for LC
  233. jonas’ +1 for XEP-0338
  234. daniel i’m expecting this have similiar outcome as the other two jingle specs we called
  235. dwd +1 to LC.
  236. daniel few but positive feedback
  237. 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
  238. Zash I'm almost out of battery fyi
  239. jonas’ 5) Pending votes
  240. jonas’ none
  241. jonas’ (except Ge0rG now)
  242. jonas’ 6) Date of next
  243. jonas’ +1w wfm
  244. daniel +1w wfm
  245. dwd +1 wwfm
  246. Zash Wfm
  247. jonas’ 7) AOB
  248. jonas’ since Zash is out of battery and we’re running out of time, I’d like to skip this one
  249. jonas’ since Zash is out of battery and we’re running out of time anyways, I’d like to skip this one
  250. dwd Happy to.
  251. jonas’ 8) Ite Meeting Est
  252. jonas’ thanks all
  253. Zash Thanks
  254. jonas’ quick note that I sent a meeting time scheduling thing for the routing stuff (cc @ Ge0rG )
  255. dwd Thanks jonas’!
  256. jonas’ SamWhited, I note you’re not in xsf@, any reason for that?
  257. dwd BTW, why would one ever block a Last Call?
  258. jonas’ dwd, if it’s 90% TODO maybe?
  259. SamWhited jonas’: too noisey and distracting; happy to join temporarily if we want to have this discussion in there
  260. dwd jonas’, But you could raise that in Last Call?
  261. daniel SamWhited, 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/>
  262. jonas’ SamWhited, ok, feel free to continue the discussion here for now then
  263. daniel sending clients would have to support ever sending <styled false/>
  264. daniel if they didn’t want to
  265. 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
  266. SamWhited daniel: I don't actually understand the three modes
  267. daniel and just adding <styled true/> is free
  268. SamWhited What is the default if no styled=false or styled=true is present?
  269. daniel relatively
  270. daniel the receiving client can decide
  271. dwd SamWhited, The default is "Implementation defined", which is what it is now.
  272. jonas’ SamWhited, "sending client doesn’t know what it’s doing, use a local user/implementation preference"
  273. 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"
  274. sonny has left
  275. sonny has joined
  276. SamWhited So 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
  277. dwd One advantage is that if the client receives something *broken, it can know whether this is genuinely broken or just not actually styling.
  278. SamWhited If 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.
  279. dwd SamWhited, But one of your clients might not do styling anyway, right now.
  280. SamWhited Also, 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
  281. dwd SamWhited, So I don't see what changes.
  282. SamWhited dwd: but they would or would not apply it equally for all messages from all contacts, muc participants, etc.
  283. dwd SamWhited, No.
  284. daniel SamWhited, well *your* client could still default to styled if there are no hints
  285. jonas’ (I assume Conversations will)
  286. jonas’ (at least for a transition period)
  287. daniel probably
  288. SamWhited daniel: 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
  289. sonny has left
  290. sonny has joined
  291. jonas’ the recommendation to default to styling=true can be put in a place where client developers look for "good UX tips" *hinthint*
  292. SamWhited This 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
  293. jonas’ how does this add uncertainty for *sending* clients?
  294. SamWhited For 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
  295. SamWhited However, if I just type "check out this *styling*" what should it do?
  296. pep. re flow's suggestion on 157, I'm happy to add the validation thing but I have no clue how
  297. SamWhited Should it add styling=true? Do nothing and let it be inconsistently displayed between the remote users clients?
  298. jonas’ SamWhited, that depends: does your input field show it as boldface inside the input field? if so, styling=true, otherwise no.
  299. jonas’ pep., I hear flow will look that up
  300. dwd jonas’, +1 on that.
  301. pep. And re 393 hint, I think that's pretty much useless
  302. daniel > SamWhited, that depends: does your input field show it as boldface inside the input field? if so, styling=true, otherwise no. +1
  303. dwd SamWhited, Your client should be expressing the user's intent.
  304. pep. Clients will just put that in the payload all the time and we're back to normal
  305. dwd pep., Isn't that OK?
  306. pep. To be back to normal?
  307. moparisthebest clients don't know the user's intent
  308. Zash I don't see how making things more explicit makes things uncertain.
  309. moparisthebest I'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
  310. pep. moparisthebest, that's their issue, they could very well know if they allowed it in the input format
  311. SamWhited Zash: 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.
  312. dwd pep., I mean, if clients put the styling hint in all the time, that just means they're explicitly intending the message to be styled.
  313. moparisthebest I 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
  314. 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
  315. pep. dwd, and what in the message actually is styled?
  316. SamWhited No 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)
  317. moparisthebest email, irc, usenet, everything else, right? where you just type in your styling
  318. SamWhited Any randomization of how things are displayed on top of that is a bad thing.
  319. dwd SamWhited, So what's the randomization you're anticipating?
  320. moparisthebest many xmpp clients even already implemented this, gajim did for instance
  321. moparisthebest before it was a XEP I mean
  322. pep. moparisthebest, gajim doesn't implement 393 indeed
  323. pep. Even conversations differs slightly
  324. SamWhited dwd: 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
  325. SamWhited Eg. the situation in a MUC I just posited.
  326. moparisthebest pep., *this* always worked in gajim
  327. pep. "this"?
  328. pep. Ah "*this*"
  329. moparisthebest bolded *this*
  330. pep. So because one implementation chose stars to use bold means it's good to put in a standard?
  331. pep. And it's never ever gonna change
  332. moparisthebest not this one implementation
  333. pep. Because you have the world of god
  334. SamWhited Just 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
  335. pep. Because you have the word of god
  336. moparisthebest pep. also a ton of other xmpp clients, most irc clients, most email clients etc etc etc
  337. dwd SamWhited, But the undefined state is the only current one in '393.
  338. jonas’ SamWhited, we’ve been over this.
  339. jonas’ I have seen your arguments, I just disagree with them.
  340. pep. I also disagree (but I think that's already explicit)
  341. pep. And I agree with jonas’ points for -1
  342. SamWhited dwd: sort of. Right now it's just the only state, it's not a weird in-between.
  343. SamWhited Just adding a styling=false *does* make that state more explicit, so I'm okay with that.
  344. SamWhited Adding styling=true *and* styling=false makes that middle ground confusing and undefined.
  345. moparisthebest pep., jonas’ , again it seems like you guys view this as some new protocol, instead of simply documenting what always existed without being documented
  346. jonas’ moparisthebest, just because something existing doesn’t mean it’s a good thing to endorse.
  347. pep. this ^
  348. jonas’ moparisthebest, just because something exists doesn’t mean it’s a good thing to endorse.
  349. jonas’ you can document all you want -- but not with XSF endorsement.
  350. moparisthebest it doesn't matter if you endorse it or not, it exists, you'll never change it
  351. pep. moparisthebest, also, nothing in what you're saying here forces you to butcher the wire format
  352. moparisthebest it'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?
  353. moparisthebest this xep isn't butchering any wire format, this has always been passed over the wire like this because people type it this way
  354. sonny has left
  355. sonny has joined
  356. pep. Ok it's the same nonsense as before over again
  357. 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.
  358. moparisthebest again, 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
  359. moparisthebest just makes it look dumb to not officially recognize that
  360. jonas’ moparisthebest, I know that, and I’m fine with that.
  361. jonas’ the first part either way
  362. jonas’ the second I don’t necessarily agree with
  363. moparisthebest some of it is in fact super valuable
  364. jonas’ I feel this discussion is, once more, in a dead end.
  365. jonas’ and I’m going to attend to other things now, just FTR
  366. moparisthebest I'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
  367. moparisthebest this suggests you don't do that, which is helpful
  368. SamWhited Trying 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?
  369. pep. I'm just against it as long as there's no effort wrt. wire format. But I'm not council anyway
  370. pep. Hinting is not gonna fix much
  371. 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.
  372. moparisthebest my opinion is it's a standard whether you *really wish* it wasn't or not...
  373. SamWhited pep. even if it were just informational?
  374. pep. SamWhited, what does that change
  375. jonas’ pep., Standards Track is for Wire Format, Informational is "the other stuff"
  376. undefined has left
  377. pep. It doesn't even document what people use, it documents something that somebody wanted to force on users
  378. pep. (that is, people use some kind of markdown)
  379. 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"
  380. undefined has joined
  381. 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"
  382. SamWhited What do you mean by "force on users"?
  383. moparisthebest pep., I suspect the clients that already do this are far greater than the ones that never did...
  384. SamWhited I 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
  385. pep. SamWhited, well you did specifically choose to step away from markdown to prevent devs from using markdown parsers right
  386. pep. Whereas users ask for "markdown" syntax
  387. jonas’ moparisthebest, the last call didn’t bring up any except Conversations and Dino (partial implementation) I think.
  388. SamWhited pep. sort of. That was part of the decision, but also I just immitated what many clients were already doing (which wasn't markdown)
  389. jonas’ moparisthebest, so I doubt that claim.
  390. moparisthebest jonas’, gajim did it before it was a XEP, still does it last time I checked
  391. pep. SamWhited, ok. Well now if I want to promote another syntax on my client anyway, I can't
  392. SamWhited pep. 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)
  393. jonas’ moparisthebest, gajim does quotations and strikethrough and stuff? (I don’t use gajim)
  394. SamWhited pep. why not?
  395. SamWhited pep. 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.
  396. moparisthebest pep., jonas’ , check out thunderbird https://burtrum.org/up/6e1978be-53dd-4036-afd0-c0ec683e19c2/open-screeny-5017.png
  397. jonas’ moparisthebest, that’s not '393, it doesn’t define // or __
  398. jonas’ out for real now
  399. moparisthebest then maybe it should :)
  400. SamWhited jonas’: 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.
  401. 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.
  402. moparisthebest jonas’, pep. , kiwi (most popular web irc client) the one freenode hosts https://burtrum.org/up/95378a1e-3720-455d-b33f-94192f69e022/open-screeny-5123.png
  403. jonas’ moparisthebest, that’s not an XMPP client.
  404. moparisthebest right, again, just documenting how *everyone* used text messaging before XMPP even existed
  405. pep. SamWhited: so I have to parse supposedly meaningless text (styling) and try to convert into my markup
  406. moparisthebest that's my point
  407. jonas’ you’re good at this. I need to physically step away from my XMPP client now.
  408. pep. So that I emulate other users sending my markup
  409. pep. Which is meh
  410. pep. Whether if you properly signalied on the wire where you markup is I wouldn't have to worry about clumsily parsing text
  411. SamWhited pep. 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
  412. pep. Styling is not being signaled. Nowhere it says "this is styling" and "what is styling in there"
  413. sonny has left
  414. sonny has joined
  415. SamWhited Right, that's what we're discussing. I got that far.
  416. moparisthebest because people don't signal that, they are just typing, remember that pep.
  417. SamWhited Wait, are you just worried that if your client doesn't support it users are going to ask you to support it?
  418. pep. moparisthebest, please stop. You don't seem to make a difference between users and clients
  419. moparisthebest pep., because with this there is no difference
  420. pep. SamWhited, I'm worried that I can't support anything else because I'll have to deal with styling anyway
  421. pep. s/worried/annoyed/
  422. pep. moparisthebest, that's where you are wrong. Or let's say we disagree
  423. SamWhited pep. 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
  424. 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
  425. 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
  426. pep. But that's not possible as long as styling is not signaled
  427. SamWhited pep. 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
  428. pep. Well the "parse the message as styling" is not really defined anywhere
  429. SamWhited Or, if there is a styling=false hint, you could not convert it (which is the hint I'm okay with adding).
  430. MattJ How about we just don't standardize this? The argument is that "users are doing it", but users are inconsistent
  431. moparisthebest pep., 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?
  432. pep. I don't know what's styling in your message
  433. SamWhited pep. it is defined as "if you support styling, parse messages as styling"
  434. pep. SamWhited, and what is styling in your message?
  435. moparisthebest ie, 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"
  436. SamWhited pep. the entire message, always.
  437. pep. "> <" is that a quote, is that an emoji
  438. SamWhited pep. 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.
  439. pep. We've been making the same arguments over two years, I'm not sure what more I can do
  440. pep. SamWhited, but then what about: "> < *foo*"
  441. pep. "*foo*" would not be parsed as bold.
  442. theTedd has joined
  443. SamWhited pep. why not?
  444. pep. Because you sent styling=false
  445. SamWhited oh, then that's not a quote or bold because you sent styling=false, so don't convert it into your NewMarkup
  446. SamWhited oooh, 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?
  447. pep. I don't like the either all or nothing "feature"
  448. SamWhited ahh, gotcha, sorry, that's what I didn't understand about this entire conversation.
  449. pep. That's been my pitch for 2 years. Thanks for reading :(
  450. SamWhited pep. yes, I know, but from your previous message it seemed like you were making a completely different argument.
  451. SamWhited My mistake, I understand now.
  452. theTedd pep'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
  453. pep. theTedd, thanks :p
  454. pep. SamWhited, which is why I think the hint is not gonna help (not much at least, it's a small improvement)
  455. SamWhited I 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
  456. SamWhited So that seems fine if that's something you want to do.
  457. pep. The hint is not sufficient
  458. sonny has left
  459. sonny has joined
  460. 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
  461. SamWhited pep. 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
  462. 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
  463. theTedd the second point is 'what' should they apply automatically? obviously you say 0393, but a client may support another -- the hint would indicate which
  464. SamWhited pep. 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.
  465. pep. SamWhited, you can't actually do that with styling
  466. pep. Because you're gonna send "*foo*" in both cases
  467. SamWhited If you hit backspace, remove your internal XHTML styling for that one element and don't update it anymore
  468. SamWhited (unless it changes)
  469. pep. Ah you're talking about a proper wire format. Sure
  470. SamWhited You are right that remote clients that support XHTML-IM vs. remote clients that support styling will show different things
  471. SamWhited But 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.
  472. pep. I'd be happy just having what styling does with a proper wire format. That is, styling only used as input format
  473. SamWhited Yes but that would make things far more complicated, and unnecessarily so when it works fine most of the time.
  474. SamWhited And you can do what that issue wants today easily enough, so why add more complexity?
  475. pep. more complicated, surely. But that doesn't lock us up with this format and all its disadvantages
  476. pep. I can't do that already, since I can't parse what I receive properly
  477. SamWhited You're not locked up with this format as you say anyways, feel free to do your own thing.
  478. theTedd SamWhited, 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)
  479. SamWhited pep. 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
  480. pep. SamWhited, same issue, I don't know in your message what is styling and what isn't
  481. SamWhited theTedd: 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.
  482. SamWhited pep. it's all styling unless they hit backspace right after entering the text.
  483. theTedd SamWhited, okay, but why is true a difficulty?
  484. pep. SamWhited, that's fine when sending but not when receiving
  485. SamWhited theTedd: true isn't difficult, it's just unnecessary and makes there be lots more states
  486. SamWhited pep. 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.
  487. theTedd SamWhited, there are three states: true, false, none -- none is what already exists
  488. pep. SamWhited, right, and that's why I say we're locked up with styling
  489. SamWhited pep. so don't support styling if you don't like it, I don't see what the problem is.
  490. SamWhited or just support it as an input method and then send XHTML-IM or whatever.
  491. theTedd pep., 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*
  492. pep. theTedd, by encouraging client devs not to do anything about it
  493. pep. "yeah it's fine, while you could help fix the state, just put stuff on the wire who cares"
  494. pep. "yeah it's fine, while you could help fix the current state, just put stuff on the wire who cares"
  495. theTedd I agree, but devs are lazy and will take a library you throw at them when it exists
  496. SamWhited pep. 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.
  497. pep. SamWhited, I'm not saying this is not good for users
  498. Ge0rG You can't fix the current state, you only can fix a future that comes after you created a XEP and got it widely implemented
  499. pep. I'm saying users only care about the input format
  500. pep. I'm not sure what's wrong about this statement
  501. pep. And if we agree, can we move towards this please
  502. SamWhited I agree that users don't care what's happening behind the scenes, they just want to type *bold* and see their text be bolded.
  503. pep. yes
  504. theTedd ideally, 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
  505. SamWhited Which 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.
  506. pep. SamWhited, but why encourage devs not to care about what goes on the wire
  507. theTedd 'fine' -- it's hacky at best
  508. SamWhited pep. why should they care if it works fine?
  509. pep. I'm not sur ewhat's to gain here
  510. SamWhited Let's refocus this discussion:
  511. pep. it doesn't "work fine"
  512. pep. Just like theTedd said it's hacky at best
  513. SamWhited I *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?
  514. pep. yes
  515. pep. this
  516. SamWhited okay, so let's ignore wire format, user input methods, etc. since those are just consequences of wanting this feature.
  517. Wojtek has joined
  518. pep. Well "this feature" also possibly being accidental
  519. SamWhited Instead, 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.
  520. pep. I type something and it gets interpreted wrongly
  521. SamWhited pep. I didn't undestand that, what did you mean by "being accidental"?
  522. pep. "> <" being just one example
  523. SamWhited So having a styling=false hint fixes that example.
  524. 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
  525. SamWhited Also, I suspect that it's rare enough in practice that we don't have to care.
  526. pep. SamWhited, it "fixes" that example if that's the only thing in the message
  527. sonny has left
  528. theTedd pep., you can't fix 0393 to do that - it's not going to happen
  529. SamWhited pep. 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.
  530. pep. theTedd, I know and that's why I don't want 393 :)
  531. theTedd SamWhited, you're defending 0393 when pep is really arguing for an alternative
  532. SamWhited theTedd: 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.
  533. pep. The thing is that you're also forcing 393 on me (as a user, and client dev)
  534. theTedd pep's argument is that providing this reduces the motivation to do anything else because "it largely works"
  535. pep. And I'd like to prevent that
  536. SamWhited Again, I'm really not. You don't have to implement 393.
  537. pep. But I can't stop receiving maybe-393 payloads
  538. undefined has left
  539. SamWhited pep. you can't stop receiving those anyways, people are *already* typing asterisks and what not.
  540. SamWhited It doesn't matter if the spec exists or not.
  541. theTedd hint=true would at least make it explicit what you're receiving
  542. undefined has joined
  543. pep. SamWhited, and if their client supported something that had a proper wire format, I would know
  544. pep. And I could interpret them differently
  545. 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
  546. SamWhited You 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.
  547. SamWhited Or don't implement styling at all and only support your other wire format if you get that.
  548. susmit88 has joined
  549. pep. I'm not sure where I'm not clear on this
  550. pep. Why don't you see you're actually forcing me to implement it
  551. pep. well, "you", clients implementing 393
  552. pep. You by extension
  553. SamWhited Lots of clients already implement 393, it's just not called that and they all have slightly different rules.
  554. SamWhited This spec doesn't change that.
  555. pep. Let's just talk about the spec
  556. SamWhited The spec doesn't change anything, so it's not forcing you to implement or not implement anything.
  557. pep. Ok I'm giving up sorry
  558. pep. It's being vetoed anyway so..
  559. paul has left
  560. SamWhited Possibly 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
  561. SamWhited I've never seen it before
  562. theTedd kaomoji
  563. SamWhited Thanks. I don't see that one in this list of kaomoji, but I'll keep looking
  564. pep. 😖😫 < some variant of these
  565. SamWhited I 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
  566. SamWhited wrapped in parens, I mean
  567. theTedd they tend be much more complex with various unicode characters
  568. pep. ←(>▽<)ノ
  569. SamWhited pep. that wouldn't conflict or be a quote, so no problem with that one
  570. pep. SamWhited, not sure what you're trying to do here anyway
  571. pep. it's just one example
  572. SamWhited pep. I know, I want to use it in an example in the XEP of disabling the styling hint
  573. SamWhited So I was just trying to find what that emoji represented, but I can't find it anywhere
  574. SamWhited If the way it's actually written doesn't actually conflict, it's not a good example for me to use
  575. theTedd the 'real' way might not, but people lazily type >< because it's quicker
  576. Zash >_>
  577. SamWhited ah, gotcha. Okay, I'll just use it in the example then as is and say that it's an emoji without naming it. Thanks.
  578. pep. Also a quote from Zash in dino@ the other day: "That's how it works on *nix afaik, $LANG and $LC_* etc"
  579. Zash 😒️
  580. pep. And I can grep through logs if you want a lot more
  581. SamWhited pep. that's okay, I just needed one and the emoji example is a good one to use since people will probably understand it
  582. SamWhited thanks
  583. paul has joined
  584. sonny has joined
  585. sonny has left
  586. susmit88 has left
  587. sonny has joined
  588. susmit88 has joined
  589. theTedd has left
  590. susmit88 has left
  591. susmit88 has joined
  592. sonny has left
  593. sonny has joined
  594. pep. hmm so what's the status of the 157 PR? "Accepted but"?
  595. jonas’ pep., accepted, but flow wants to investigate whether he wants to improve it before we get it into Active
  596. larma has left
  597. jonas’ (in which case we’ll have to re-vote)
  598. jonas’ oh, also, Ge0rGs vote is pending
  599. jonas’ so it’s *not* accepted at this stage
  600. jonas’ but even if Ge0rG had already not-vetoed it, The Editors™ would delay the merge until flow reports back
  601. pep. should I change it to WIP or sth? (after Ge0rg votes?)
  602. pep. or blocked or..
  603. Ge0rG Should I just delay my vote?
  604. larma has joined
  605. David has joined
  606. bear has left
  607. jonas’ pep., there is a "Draft" button
  608. jonas’ that would probably be appropriate
  609. jonas’ also, for the record, we voted on d902893
  610. jonas’ also, for the record, we voted on d902893
  611. jonas’ having it written down here makes it easier to keep track when re-reviewing the thing
  612. pep. jonas’: yeah that's what I meant
  613. Zash what's that, a case where using github doesn't make things better? :)
  614. sonny has left
  615. sonny has joined
  616. Wojtek has left
  617. sonny has left
  618. sonny has joined
  619. Wojtek has joined
  620. debacle has left
  621. bear has joined
  622. sonny has left
  623. kusoneko has left
  624. kusoneko has joined
  625. kusoneko has left
  626. kusoneko has joined
  627. kusoneko has left
  628. kusoneko has joined
  629. kusoneko has left
  630. kusoneko has joined
  631. vaulor has left
  632. SouL has left
  633. vaulor has joined
  634. SouL has joined
  635. susmit88 has left
  636. debacle has joined
  637. susmit88 has joined
  638. debacle has left
  639. debacle has joined
  640. sonny has joined
  641. kusoneko has left
  642. kusoneko has joined
  643. sonny has left
  644. sonny has joined
  645. sonny has left
  646. kusoneko has left
  647. kusoneko has joined
  648. sonny has joined
  649. stpeter has left
  650. sonny has left
  651. sonny has joined
  652. eta has left
  653. sonny has left
  654. eta has joined
  655. sonny has joined
  656. stpeter has joined
  657. sonny has left
  658. sonny has joined
  659. susmit88 has left
  660. susmit88 has joined
  661. robertooo has left
  662. susmit88 has left
  663. susmit88 has joined
  664. sonny has left
  665. Tobias has left
  666. susmit88 has left
  667. susmit88 has joined
  668. daniel has left
  669. daniel has joined
  670. undefined has left
  671. susmit88 has left
  672. susmit88 has joined
  673. robertooo has joined
  674. susmit88 has left
  675. susmit88 has joined
  676. susmit88 has left
  677. susmit88 has joined
  678. stpeter has left
  679. debacle has left
  680. stpeter has joined