jdev - 2019-09-07

  1. jonas’

    unicode 3.2, as specified in RFC 6122, does not allow that nickname

  2. jonas’

    stringprep with unicode 3.2, as specified in RFC 6122, does not allow that nickname

  3. Ge0rG

    It's the revenge of the 🤖

  4. Zash

    R-R-R-Robot face

  5. tom

    is that so

  6. tom

    �"Z▒u$�܀�w����Bs��ё.�B�}Q������yu WK����'=J06��W�E�!��▒�ܖ�[�ڃ5���2&K�x�s��c �d� ^M���S���*I��(�3��xo�C�FKG%��3��^ݜ�������6`6�Y+"U�0n^V�4�ʔ^m%�Q=�K�z&閈B4�Ex��\�����h�Q[��{�ᤉ!'�6���\+K�E98c���K�@N��++x�R�T|H�-���Ϙ�,���$�

  7. linkmauve

    tom, your server would abort your connection if you were to send non-UTF-8 characters, so your client most likely prevented you from doing so.

  8. tom

    My client gives me a popup saying that a stanza was received from an invalid jid and therefor ignored

  9. tom

    whenever that person with a lips pictogram in their name changes presence state in the chat

  10. tom

    that's also strange because I can't join groupchats with emojis for username

  11. linkmauve

    tom, you may want to update your client, I believe it was fixed in the following version.

  12. Ge0rG

    tom: upgrade your Gajim

  13. tom

    i see so that's not a protocol limitation

  14. Zash

    Would you prefer your server to stop talking to the MUC?

  15. tom


  16. tom

    i'll just change the code

  17. tom

    *in the client

  18. pep.

    Now maybe you understand why I mentioned trying to backport master stuff, or starting from master even :)

  19. pep.

    Fixes, fixes everywhere! (And bugs)

  20. Zash

    Unicode is fun :)

  21. Ge0rG

    Forward compatibility is fun!

  22. ͡ ͡

    This is me now

  23. pep.

    How are references like this updated in RFCs? (Unicode has a bit more than 3.2 releases now)

  24. Zash

    pep.: another rfc that updates or replaces it

  25. Daniel

    Well we could move to precis

  26. Daniel

    But it's complicated

  27. Zash

    No implementation we can use yet that I'm aware of

  28. pep.

    But then precis also uses a specific version of Unicode right

  29. linkmauve

    Someone said yesterday they wanted to add PRECIS support to jid-rs!

  30. Daniel

    Does it?

  31. ͡ ͡

    it's not finished until you can implement a full virtual machine in it plus 2 variants of javascript

  32. Zash

    Does it?

  33. Daniel

    I thought that was the point of precis not to

  34. pep.

    It doesn't?

  35. pep.

    Ah ok

  36. Daniel

    Who knows

  37. pep.

    Cool then

  38. Zash

    Kinda moot until there are implementations

  39. pep.

    Bootstrap issues?

  40. Daniel

    Is it hard to implement? I thought the point was also to make it easier

  41. pep.

    It's going to be fun when things start breaking because somebody does something else than stringprep

  42. Zash

    Robot face all over again

  43. ͡ ͡

    Microsoft will just make another special snowflake encoding before that

  44. Ge0rG

    Just ensure that your implementation breaks in the most annoying way possible on remote-attacker-controlled data. You'll be fine.

  45. Zash

    Will do

  46. jonas’

    pep., no, precis does not use a specific version of unicode, which will be a rats nest of trouble

  47. jonas’

    given that Unicode does make breaking changes between releases

  48. jonas’

    there goes any validation we can reasonably do without breaking federation

  49. jonas’

    except if we do things like rolling unicode-release upgrades through the network, which seems like a PITA to do

  50. pep.

    But then are you happy being stuck with Unicode 3.2? If Unicode breaks then we'll have to break anyway whenever we update the RFC. And of course it won't happen all at the same time in implementations

  51. jonas’

    problem is, there’s no updating of the RFC involved for unicode upgrades

  52. jonas’

    there’s no way to tell what version your peer uses

  53. jonas’

    (for any definition of peer)

  54. jonas’

    this also affects normalisation of stuff during login, which has the potential to lock folks out of their accounts

  55. pep.

    Is that also a reason we need <moved/>? :/

  56. jonas’

    I don’t think this has anything to do with <moved/>?

  57. jonas’

    stuff like that can happen on minor glibc upgrades for example

  58. jonas’

    see the breakage that one glibc (unicode) update caused on postgres indices

  59. pep.

    I mean, people locked out of their accounts, that could be one use-case

  60. jonas’

    yeah, eh, I don’t think that we should let it come to that?

  61. pep.


  62. Bra}{man

    Amnezia 😕 😕 😕