jdev - 2021-01-27

I assume no server supports xep-0452 yet?

There's a plugin for Prosody

Will check it out, thanks

Oh, 452 has been announced yesterday but is not on the website list yet

someone needs to kick the website build

Kick it you say?

Does any client support XEP-0372 references yet?

converse may

Makes sense, as the prosody module for muc mention notifications is written by jcbrand.

is there bikeshedding left on references or has that ended?

I still don’t think that how it maps everything to a URI is a wise move

Possibly not. It’s not immediately clear what would be better, though.

I made a proposal back then

it was mostly lost in another iteration of the character counting bikeshed though: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2018-March/034559.html

I’m not opposed to such a thing. I do think it would be nicer to be able to URI All The Thing.

I accept pragmatism may come before that.

Mmmmmmmm `<message to='xmpp:user@example.net'/>`

It's not a fucking bike shed. The stupid way in which you're counting characters is entirely screwing me over while it's trivial to do it the other way

Sam Whited, your stupid way of character counting would be entirely screwing me over, while it’s trivial the other way!!! (for me)

It's not, I implemented it in python and Go both ways.

But you constantly ignore my examples while demanding that I produce more examples and never producing any of your own. I'm sick of this community wielding the burden of proof as a weapon.

(I don't mean "you" personally, I don't remember who all in that massive thread it was, FWIW)

Anyways, done now, I don't know why I bother. We do all the same mistakes over and over again and just insist that it's fine.

I don't like the tone here.

Yah, sorry, I need to leave this channel. Between this and DOAP I'm fucking furious and that's not okay in a public place, sorry.

sorry, I was trying to be ironic

(symbolised by a lot of `!`)

hmm

I'm happy I haven't been following standards threads lately

irony often doesn't work in text chats. it appears that counting codepoints is a middle ground and has consensus. I am still not convinced that counting grapheme clusters is necessarily wrong, since there is a least one programming language with build in support for this.

> irony often doesn't work in text chats. let’s bikeshed a protocol for that </i>

I'd use <p> for Poe, and insides include things like <i> for irony, <s> for sarcasm, etc. This way we could get to things like <p><s><i>Are you sure?</s></i></p>

but since sometimes (often?) len_codepoints(input) == len_grapheme_clusters(input), I can settle with codepoints (or "starting" with codepoints ;))

XEP-0014

seems like the bikeshed was already done

Zash, ITYM 007^W^Wnvm :-°

Rejected though, flow

pep., the key is to stay calm

which is actually a good advice in any situation

(even though, it is sometimes not easy)

but getting emotional in a discussion is typically counter productive

flow: Fuck that. ;)

I miss Summit

yes.

Summit would’ve been great, especially after this straining year

Much too easy to get upset at a bunch of text on a screen than AFK faces.

I'm hoping someone's going to announce a remote summit, but I don't have the cycles to put into arranging one, so I'm not making noise about it.

Oh, I guess it would have been tomorrow and Friday if it was happening wouldn't it. Nevermind :)

Kev, yep, sometimes that is tempting to write…

Kev, why yes, the bystander effect working group will take care of it!

I'd really like to hear some short presentations from every active xmpp project about what they are currently doing and did in the last eyar

Well, Summit's usually a Board-led thing, not just 'someone' :)

SCAM I thought?

It's been Board in the past.

Maybe they've delegated to SCAM (but if they delegated, it's still a Board thing).

I feel that lately board has just been a routing utility to working groups

That's a valid thing for a board to do.

pep.: I think that's fine. Board doesn't have to do work, just set direction and ensure that work is done.

well if there is a SCAM team, then it appears sensible to delgate it to them, no?

flow, but *is there* a SCAM team?

good question