XSF Discussion - 2018-12-16

  1. jonas’

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

  2. Ge0rG

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

  3. jonas’

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

  4. jonas’

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

  5. Kev

    Nope, just keep sending.

  6. Kev

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

  7. jonas’

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

  8. rion

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

  9. Kev

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

  10. jonas’

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

  11. rion

    Kev: yep

  12. Kev

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

  13. Kev

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

  14. jonas’

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

  15. jonas’

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

  16. rion

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

  17. jonas’

    s/semantics/syntax/ in this case maybe

  18. Kev

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

  19. Kev

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

  20. jonas’

    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?

  21. jonas’

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

  22. Kev

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

  23. jonas’

    the set of hash functions possibly never

  24. Kev

    jonas’: Right.

  25. jonas’

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

  26. rion

    Kev: or just commit

  27. Kev

    jonas’: Or split first.

  28. Kev

    rion: Ok, ta.

  29. jonas’

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

  30. Kev


  31. Kev

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

  32. rion

    your commits are always welcome :-)

  33. Kev


  34. jonas’

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

  35. Ge0rG

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

  36. Ge0rG

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

  37. Ge0rG

    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.