XSF Discussion - 2018-02-24

seems like it

maybe an editorial mistake that the jabber:iq:register FORM_TYPE isn’t used in the register workflow?

Does the Dino client use a fixed resource-part value?

Their MUC: chat@dino.im

SamWhited, uh, are you sure about that?

grepping through my presence, I see the following XEP-0115 nodes which emit(ted) sha1 hashes: node='http://bitlbee.org/xmpp/caps' node='http://code.matthewwild.co.uk/riddim/' node='http://conversations.im' node='http://gajim.org' node='http://mcabber.com/caps' node='http://miranda-ng.org/caps' node='http://pidgin.im/' node='http://psi-dev.googlecode.com/caps' node='http://psi-im.org' node='http://psi-plus.com' node='https://dino.im' node='https://github.com/robbiehanson/XMPPFramework' node='http://sleekxmpp.com/ver/1.3.2' node='http://slixmpp.com/ver/1.2.4' node='http://slixmpp.com/ver/1.3.0' node='http://swift.im' node='http://tkabber.jabber.ru/' node='http://vacuum-im.googlecode.com' node='http://www.android.com/gtalk/client/caps' node='http://www.apple.com/ichat/caps' node='http://www.eyecu.ru' node='http://www.igniterealtime.org/projects/smack' node='http://www.profanity.im'

ENOCTX

this should be about the total ecosystem and I’m wondering where you’re getting the base64 from

ahh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood; I thought he was looking at the bindata, let me check again.

Zash, {xep 0153} presence update SHA1 encoding

Zash: vCard-Based Avatars (Historical, Active, 2006-08-16) See: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0153.html

XEP schema says base64, XEP normative text says nothing about that, the whole ecosystem uses lowercase hex

Classic ecosystem.

Zash, also, newest standards@ thread

I look away from mutt for 5 seconds and there's a bazillion new posts...

I think every one uses hex

Also the node in the pep avatar is also hex

It references RFC3174 which shows things in hex, I'm pretty sure. Still, seems as if it should be clarified.

hex vs b64 inconsistensy has happened before, like in the hashes xep, and jingle file transfer

> Now this is fun. First of all, the mantra: The Schemas Are Not Normative. the schemas are not normative? the examples aren't either. so what is?

and why do we have schemas and examples

the text is normative

which is great when all the text says is "this is how you do it:" followed by examples

I wish we'd get rid of schemas, for something that supposedly makes things less confusing it ends up introducing a lot of confusion.

And make examples normative since that's all anyone looks at anyways.

SamWhited: Unless the author goes the distance to make the schemas normative-worthy perhaps?

That would be nice, except that most authors don't understand XML schema, it's too confusing, and way too easy to get wrong.

also, things we like to do are hard to express in XML schemas, see {xep 30}

jonasw: Service Discovery (Standards Track, Final, 2017-10-03) See: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0030.html

Right, you end up needing xml schema 2 which was more or less never implemented.

SamWhited, you scared me there for a second with your base64 :)

jonasw: amusingly enough, I was confused because he sent xml schema…

(okay, that's not entirely fair, he did say "hash" as well, which I should have understood to mean the sha1)