jonas’well, "nothing" as written in the agenda is wrong, in fact we did have a protoxep ;)
jonas’4) Items for Voting
SamAgenda bashing: please consider moving carbons to draft again soon; thanks :)
jonas’4a) PR#1044: xep-0294: add mapping for a=extmap-allow-mixed
Updates the reference of RFC 5285 -> RFC 8285 and includes support for that new attribute.
jonas’Sam, same as for MAM… ping the author to make them ask the editor please
SamOh right *facepalm*, will do.
jonas’Sam, but thanks for the reminder, I’ll ask Matt about whether MAM is now ready for LC
dwdEasier with Carbons, half the XSF must be an author by now. :-)
Samjonas’: Matt already requested LC on MAM IIRC
danieldo we have a general rule or best practices for adding new elements in the same namespace?
SamBut sorry, peanut gallery shutting up and not being distracting now.
jonas’Sam, thanks :)
dwdAnyway. This PR.
danielwe did something similiar with rtcmux not too long ago
jonas’daniel, I think the consensus normally is "don’t"
dwddaniel, If it's an optional element, then it's technically breaking XML namespacing rules, but pragmatically it seems absolutely fine.
danielbut the situation was slightly different because 'most' implementations already do this anyway (and there arent that many)
Zashnit: Does this qualify for a "should be discussed on standards@ first" ?
dwdZash, That was something I was going to raise, indeed.
danielfwiw I think this PR is probably fine and I don’t see this breaking anything in practice
danielbut the 'proper' solution would be to put this in a new namespace
danielwhich would be extremly wasteful
jonas’I already forgot about our new rule and going by that, this PR obviously isn’t even on our agenda ;)
dwddaniel, I think that's the pedantic solution, rather than the proper one.
ZashThe general principle of "ignore what you don't understand" should make this fine without a ns bump.
dwddaniel, We change namespaces to prevent interop failures, which this shouldn't cause if I'm understanding things correctly - that is, it's safe to leave off this element and it's safe to ignore it.
daniel+1 on the PR
ZashIt irks me that there's discussion on github instead of standards@, but the comments on the PR makes me think this is fine. And I trust fippo on these things. So +1 if we're voting. 🙂
Ge0rGBut are we voting or escalating to standards?
jonas’yes, that’s a question we need to answer for ourselves
jonas’I think raising to the list would be good
jonas’especially with jingle
dwdI'll on-list for essentially the reasons Zash gives - it irks that it's not discussed on list, and while I'm pretty sure it's fine based on Fippo and Jonathan Lennox's discussion, I'd like it run past people on list first.
jonas’I think what dwd proposes is a good middle-ground
jonas’ok, any other votes in this meeting?
jonas’ok, any other votes on that in this meeting?
Ge0rGI'll on-list in the hope that somebody brings it to the list before the vote expires
jonas’Ge0rG, Tedd will :)
jonas’4b) Proposed XMPP Extension: Content Rating Labels
Abstract: This specification provides a wire format in the form of a Service
Discovery extension to allow services of various kinds to publish information
about the kind of content they allow and/or endorse on their platform.
jonas’I am +1
Ge0rGon-list (very much sorry)
I noticed some issues that I'm sure the author will fix in Experimental.
jonas’Zash, care to share those?
Zash> If the format needs to be conveyed in plain text form, [...], the following algorithm is to be applied:
and then the section ends
jonas’that’s … a good find
dwdYes, I noticed that algorithm seemed overly simplistic, and arguably misses some key cases.
jonas’dwd, feedback welcome
dwdBut anyway: Yes, seems worth working on, and therefore +1
jonas’please go ahead and post it on-list. I won’t be able to work on this further right away because I need to migrate some stuff to other servers (unrelated to the OVH incident), but it’s high on my prio list after that
jonas’ok, we’ve got all votes then
jonas’5) Pending Votes
None except those from today.
jonas’6) Date of Next
Ge0rGI'll be in a video conf next week
Ge0rGno idea how much attention it will require yet
dwdNone from me.
jonas’ok, taking the remaining silence as a no
jonas’8) Ite Meeting Est
jonas’Thanks Tedd for the minutes for last time, thanks everyone \o/