jdev - 2023-11-10

  1. h22oo


  2. lovetox


  3. ///@@@lovetox

    has anyone an example of a invalid resource?

  4. ///@@@lovetox

    i struggle to find one

  5. jonas’

    just use anything not in Unicode 3.2

  6. jonas’

    otherwise the resource strings are pretty much free form

  7. jonas’

    and you'd have to use control characters not available on a common keyboard to mess with them

  8. jonas’

    such as U+FFFC

  9. Kev

    \0 is the easiest, I'd have thought.

  10. jonas’

    Kev, try to send that over XMPP :)

  11. Kev

    That wasn't part of the assignment ;)

  12. jonas’

    I took it as an implicit; otherwise, yes, \0 is the easiest (and also one of the hardest to type ;))

  13. Kev

    I'd just assumed we were talking about testing a JID validation function or something. You're just as likely to be right.

  14. jonas’

    oh! U+200D isn't that uncommon, but prohibited via tabe C22

  15. jonas’

    oh! U+200D isn't that uncommon, but prohibited via table C.2.2

  16. Zash

    And which RFC and Unicode version are we using for this exercise?

  17. Kev

    Zash: Yes.

  18. jonas’

    There Is Only One.

  19. Zash

    https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6122 Got it!

  20. lovetox

    U200D does not work for me

  21. lovetox

    dont forget there is normalization in the process

  22. jonas’

    oh, right

  23. lovetox

    ah U+FFFC does the trick, thanks

  24. jonas’

    the normalization probably kills U+200d away

  25. Beherit

    *XMPP Community* Reminder to consider to join the upcoming XMPP Vision & Strategic Workshop We intend to discuss our organization and future of the technology we use, develop and thrive across the XMPP Community. Date: Tue, 14th November 2023 Time: 6:00 - 9:00 pm UTC Online & in English Questions: https://xmpp.org/chat?xsf Everyone welcome - spread the word! https://fosstodon.org/@xmpp/111387292602565749

  26. lovetox

    hm .. precis allows U+FFFC

  27. singpolyma

    My nirmal test is a resource with 🤯

  28. lovetox

    also allowed by precis

  29. lovetox

    its easy to find something thats not allowed by stringprep

  30. singpolyma

    Isn't stringprep the only thing that matters?

  31. lovetox

    Hm actually its a obsolete standard

  32. Kev

    And also the only one that matters :)

  33. singpolyma

    In what way is it obsolete?

  34. lovetox

    as in it is superseeded by another rfc

  35. lovetox

    just that now everybody wants to ignore it, i would expect the XSF to act in some way if it thinks it was a error to publish this RFC

  36. Zash

    Just think of it as the MIX of address specifications...

  37. lovetox

    yeah with the small difference that MIX did not supersede the MUC protocol ...

  38. Zash

    FWIW for Prosody I'm mostly waiting for ICU to gain support for the newer thing.

  39. Zash

    lovetox, so just like PRECIS hasn't superseeded STRINGPREP

  40. Zash

    references in RFC metadata notwithstanding

  41. lovetox

    it says right there in the header

  42. lovetox

    Obsoletes: 6122

  43. lovetox

    but im not an expert of RFC process things

  44. lovetox

    maybe im misunderstanding this

  45. Zash

    You underestimate the power of implementations.

  46. singpolyma

    I'm not sure I've ever seen an implementation if precis. Not that most things validate JIDs at all either way

  47. Zash

    It's just a word and a number until implementations follow them.

  48. lovetox

    singpolyma, you mean on a server?

  49. lovetox

    Concersations supported precis at one point, Gajim supports it since a few years

  50. singpolyma

    I meant clients and libraries mostly

  51. singpolyma

    Conversations didn't until recently, but they've followed me and do stringprep now

  52. lovetox

    ok but then you knew an implementation ...

  53. singpolyma

    Of what?

  54. singpolyma

    Of precis? No, I haven't seen one

  55. singpolyma

    Usually it's no validation, sometimes it's stringprep

  56. lovetox

    what are we talking about now, if you seen the code with your eyes? or do you mean implementing the precis standard itself in a library?

  57. lovetox

    i thought we talking about clients using precis

  58. singpolyma

    What code did I see with my own eyes?

  59. singpolyma

    Conversations did not use precis

  60. singpolyma

    It used no validation at all

  61. lovetox

    did you not just say > Conversations didn't until recently

  62. singpolyma

    Didn't validate until recently

  63. lovetox

    im pretty sure at one point it used precis for something and then reverted

  64. lovetox

    but maybe im remembering it wrong

  65. lovetox

    anyway, it does not really matter if something uses it or not

  66. lovetox

    i asked from a standards point of view, if this is dead

  67. Zash

    https://unicode-org.atlassian.net/browse/ICU-11981 might be resolved .. any day now

  68. lovetox

    and how does that solve the migration problem?

  69. Zash

    I'm not going to worry about some problem until that day