Link Mauve“20:53:00 flow> we could add an optional feature to xep234 that allows multiple <file> elements in <description>”, IIRC it was the case before, and got replaced with multiple contents, not sure I remember why.
Link Mauve“20:53:40 lovetox> there is no "end of file" signal in jingle”, IIRC this is one of the changes in my long overdue list of improvements to 0234.
flowLink Mauve, I can find any traces of multiple <file/> elements being allowed in the history. But then again, I think the best/correct pattern would be for the sender to present the recipient a list of files via SIMS, and then let the recipient pull the ones he wants
Link MauveProbably yeah, or XEP-0329 or something similar.
Link Mauveflow, but hmm, shouldn’t @node be (correctly) reflected instead?
Link MauveXEP-0030 §3.2 “If the request included a 'node' attribute, the response MUST mirror the specified 'node' attribute to ensure coherence between the request and the response.”
floware those xep30 nodes?
flowi.e. what would be returned if I disco#info them?
Link MauveAh no, sorry.
Link MauveI confused it with XEP-0135.
Link Mauvenot awake enough yet.
flowit is easy to confuse
flowprobably an argument to rename 'node' to 'path' in xep329
flowand while it, considering switching to xep385
Link MauveI’m not aware of any implementation of either (nor XEP-0214).
Link MauveDuring the last Operators Sprint I attempted to draft yet another one, better of course, for users to manage their 0363 files, but there were more considerations to be had than what I was ready to allocate.
mathieuiLink Mauve, re: operators sprint, did you get a reply from weblate?
Link MauveNope. :(
Link MauveI guess we can just host it ourselves.
Link MauveOr use Khaganat’s or something.
flowLink Mauve, care to update your PR comment?
Link Mauvelarma, how long did it take you to get accepted?
Link MauveOn Weblate Hosted?
Link Mauveflow, deleted even.
pep.flow, what should we do re 157?
pep.Wait until registry gets fixed(tm)?
pep.We'd still need to update some other XEP to allow for the validation bits right?
flowI don't recall this requiring to update another XEP. It would be nice if the registry entry would be completely displayed in its html transformed version, but that is not strictly a prerequisite, as I'd argue only the raw xml entries are normative
pep.Well judging from the list thread we can't ask for council to review the PR again right?
pep.(baring a working registry that wouldn't have required council in the first place)
flowwell the discussion about the extensible nature of registry entries was certainly good
flowwhy can't we ask council again?
flow(sorry, I only noticed that you wrote "can't" and not "can")