XSF Editor Team - 2017-09-23

should we run https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/517 by council?

it only touches the schema and from what I can tell it fixes things (but I’m not very schema-literate)

jonasw: what worries me is that this is probably an error found in many schemas

and re 517: I wonder why the third xs:choice element is required, but i'm just a bit schema-literate and I didn't looked into it

Flow, possibly. the submitter of the PR mentioned that they’ll be correcting schemas as they go along -- they plan to build a client doin gvalidation

maybe join jdev, they’re around there

i'm a jdev regular ;)

see the discussion there, I also questioned what it does, they seem confident

Schemas are non normative, so it probably doesn't matter.

No need to go through council if you think it works, I mean.

FYI: I've been playing with a little XEP formatting / processing tool, while I wouldn't want to use it for anything serious yet (the output formatting is pretty broken), it just got its first useful feature: it will tell you what XEPs need to be deprecated:

https://bitbucket.org/mellium/xep/src

> xep defer -n xepsdir/

returns a bunch of stuff (though currently chokes on the README not having a valid number, I should probably make it less strict)

I say "first useful feature", the revision printer is pretty nice too, I use that a lot.

I'm sorry… https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/518/files

I'll commit to processing this one since I'm the one that submitted it and it's going to be a pain.

I left out at least one thing that should be deferred, but we had a LC recently so I assumed that counted as "activity"

*sigh* and of course somehow literally none of those were correct. Please disregard, I was apparently on an ancient commit.