jdev - 2020-06-10

Hello

Hello world

“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.

“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.

Link 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

Probably yeah, or XEP-0329 or something similar.

sure

uh error in example in 329

Where?

Link Mauve, https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/960

Thanks. :)

flow, but hmm, shouldn’t @node be (correctly) reflected instead?

XEP-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.”

are those xep30 nodes?

i.e. what would be returned if I disco#info them?

Ah no, sorry.

I confused it with XEP-0135.

it is easy to confuse

probably an argument to rename 'node' to 'path' in xep329

and while it, considering switching to xep385

I’m not aware of any implementation of either (nor XEP-0214).

me neither

During 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.

Link Mauve, re: operators sprint, did you get a reply from weblate?

Nope. :(

:/

I guess we can just host it ourselves.

Or use Khaganat’s or something.

Link Mauve, care to update your PR comment?

larma, how long did it take you to get accepted?

On Weblate Hosted?

flow, deleted even.

thxs

flow, what should we do re 157?

Wait until registry gets fixed(tm)?

We'd still need to update some other XEP to allow for the validation bits right?

I 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

Well judging from the list thread we can't ask for council to review the PR again right?

(baring a working registry that wouldn't have required council in the first place)

well the discussion about the extensible nature of registry entries was certainly good

"what now"

why can't we ask council again?

(sorry, I only noticed that you wrote "can't" and not "can")

I mean, we certainly can ask council again