XSF Discussion - 2018-12-16

is there anything wrong with sending further presence to a MUC after the initial join presence and before having received a join reply?

jonas’: apart from not knowing if the MUC exists, no

cause I don’t want to add extra logic to prevent presence updates from being sent to the MUC before the join is complete

now that aioxmpp’s MUC will get the ability to distribute presence updates

Nope, just keep sending.

Although if you're kicked or whatever it's somewhat antisocial to autojoin.

if we just had deleted GC1.0 ... :)

Kev: Neustradamus wants you to change your email in Psi sources. What do you think? :)

The one in the README's right isn't it?

Kev, how about LC-ing https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0300.html, by the way?

Kev: yep

jonas’: Not sure it provides much value, but could do.

rion: do you know where else my address is? I'd be more inclined to remove duplication than anything else.

'390 depends on it, and I think having re-usable semantics is often a good thing.

(see the mess we got in with Jingle File Transfer and SHIM)

Kev: I guess this one too ./src/aboutdlg.cpp: "kismith@psi-im.org"

s/semantics/syntax/ in this case maybe

Sorry, I don't mean 300 provides value, I meant moving to Draft wouldn't, but I could be wrong - just out of bed).

jonas’: Yeah, I'm wrong, it would provide value.

I wonder if it should be split into a Standards Track part which describes the protocol and an Informational part which describes the set of supported hash functions?

because the protocol can easily be put in Final state right now

rion: I'd probably just remove my address from the About and leave my name there. Want me to PR?

the set of hash functions possibly never

jonas’: Right.

so… LC it and bring this up during the LC, see what folks think?

Kev: or just commit

jonas’: Or split first.

rion: Ok, ta.

I’ll bring the proposal of the split up on the list then

👍

rion: Done. That was not a repo I was expecting to push to any time soon :)

your commits are always welcome :-)

Thanks.

Ge0rG, can you please review the changes to XEP-0363 soon so that I know where to put it? kthx

jonas’: do we have a working delta renderer somewhere?

jonas’: editorial change in 0363: s/CORS-Header/CORS header/

jonas’: also my point from https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2018-July/035208.html wasn't addressed at all. I'll think some more about what my conditional vote means now that the condition wasn't met.