jonas’: I've got quick questions about muclumbus, but I'm feeding the offspring now
Guus
Did my one-on-one message arrive? If so, I'll follow up on that after lunch
jonas’
Guus, no it did not, but that’s probably because you sent it to an account on which I’m currently not available
jonas’
an account which I generally prefer for 1:1 messages
jonas’
is there a reason we cannot discuss this in a more public venue, like here or operators@? (I still can’t join jdev@)
Guus
Didn't want to bother others. Will do here
Guus
Simple question really
Guus
Is-open, does that include public rooms that at the time of query cannot be joined because of a server policy (eg: amount of occupants is at a configured max)?
jonas’
Guus, no, because muclumbus does not attempt to join rooms
jonas’
it only works with the info available from disco#info
Ge0rG
so yes, it does include those rooms
Holgerhas left
jonas’
oh, yeah
jonas’
I got that inverted
jonas’
s/\bno\b/yes/
Guus
Right. 🙂
Guus
Tx
jonas’
Rx
waqashas joined
Holgerhas joined
waqashas left
dragonspirit810has joined
pdurbinhas left
Guus
jonas’ follow-up question. The description of the 'q' form field is: "Optional string. Operates like the search box on the website."
Guus
... how does the website behave?
Guus
I've now got: split value on whitespace, and split the to-be evaluated value the same way - then check if the evaluated value split contains all of the q split.
jonas’
Guus, it’s not properly documented, as you’ve found
jonas’
it is I think a shlex.split in python, which means that you can search for stuff including spaces by writing `"foo bar"` into the search box
Guus
website doesn't appear to do partial text search, so the 'split on whitespace' thing made most sense.
Guus
but might be incomplete, or plain wrong.
jonas’
the resulting keywords are fed into SQL surrounded by `%`
jonas’
https://search.jabbercat.org/search?q=gefl%C3%BC this shows partial match✎
jonas’
https://search.jabbercat.org/search?q=gefl%C3%BC this shows a partial match ✏
Guus
oh, shoot, I missed the 3-character minimum thingy
jonas’
that’s a deployment-specific option
Guus
yeah, but it's why I though it was not doing partial matches
This seems to work fine. If I put this on a publicly reachable server, is there a way for you to test this, jonas’ ?
Guus
(or anyone else, for that matter?)
jonas’
Guus, yes, I have a test client software
jonas’
it’s even included in the public repo I think https://github.com/horazont/muchopper/blob/master/examples/request.py
Guus
that seems like something I can run myself
Ge0rGis running a mirror bot that forks the pubsub data. Sometimes.
Guus
oh, but it doesnt create/populate mucs, I think?
jonas’
Guus, no, it doesn’t
jonas’
it only queries the search thing
Chobbeshas joined
matlaghas left
matlaghas joined
pdurbinhas joined
Chobbeshas left
Chobbeshas joined
Nekithas left
pdurbinhas left
Chobbeshas left
goffihas joined
Alexhas left
Alexhas joined
curenhas left
Chobbeshas joined
Chobbeshas left
Chobbeshas joined
sezuanhas left
patrickhas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
DebXWoodyhas left
adityaborikarhas left
adityaborikarhas joined
intosihas left
DebXWoodyhas joined
intosihas joined
stpeterhas joined
peterhas joined
pdurbinhas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
curenhas joined
Lancehas joined
Chobbeshas left
pdurbinhas left
Chobbeshas joined
Andrew Nenakhovhas left
Andrew Nenakhovhas joined
Lancehas left
wojtekhas joined
lovetoxhas joined
Lancehas joined
kokonoehas left
kokonoehas joined
adityaborikarhas left
rionhas left
rionhas joined
pdurbinhas joined
adityaborikarhas joined
pdurbinhas left
zachhas left
pep.
I sent a link with poezio, and then I realized it was actually an image and some clients would display it a bit more user-friendly if I included the right tags. I sent an LMC with an OOB tag, but Conversations and dino don't display the picture anyway. Is that a bug? feature?
pep.
The XEP says:
To deal with multiple payloads, the sender MUST re-send the entire stanza, only altering id and the payloads being corrected and adding the 'replace' payload. It is expected that the receiver SHOULD then treat the new stanza as complete replacement for all the payloads received in the original stanza.
Dele (Mobile)has left
Alexhas left
debaclehas left
Lancehas left
Alexhas joined
Lancehas joined
adityaborikarhas left
lovetox
read this the first time
lovetox
was that not changed a few weeks ago?
lovetox
LMC is about body for me
lovetox
and not all payloads
goffihas left
Ge0rG
pep.: OOB is abused by Conversations and other clients for inline media, with the restriction that url must be equal to message body
goffihas joined
Ge0rG
not sure if you can LMC a picture into a message, though, as changing the type of message is forbidden by LMC
lovetox
its not abused at all
lovetox
or your definition of abused is weird
Alexhas left
lovetox
oob adds a url to a message, and thats what we do
lovetox
using the xep like it was intended
lovetox
how i display messages with a oob tag is up to the client
lovetox
and not a concern of the xep
Alexhas joined
Ge0rG
lovetox: the abuse is because it's essentially used for inline images / media, and because of the undocumented body=url requirement
lovetox
how is that an abuse, to display a url added via oob inline?!
lovetox
the XEP makes zero statements as to how a client has to display a oob url
Ge0rG
lovetox: yes, so I could use the same syntax to append my avatar to all my messages.
lovetox
yeah and?
Ge0rG
it would be an equally legal use of 0066
lovetox
people not going to chat with you long when you do that
lovetox
not sure where the abuse is though
lovetox
protocol wise, you abusing people with messages, yes thats clear
Ge0rG
lovetox: only people using a client that's not adhering to XEPs will notice.
Ge0rG
All my messages are verbal abuse, nevermind the OOB
Ge0rG
OOB is not the right XEP for inline media, because it doesn't define how to display the URI, and because there is SIMS. Furthermore, clients only showing OOB media if url==body are enforcing an invisible specification.
Ge0rG
It's all wrong.
Ge0rG
It's only slightly less wrong than just HEADing every URL that's sent to you in a message body.
lovetox
you follow the notion that you think you got to decide if my client displays something inline or not
lovetox
there is no invisible specification
Ge0rG
lovetox: no, only that I'm the one who has to decide _how_ I intended my message to be shown
lovetox
you just found out implementation details of algorithm that decideds what to display inline
lovetox
and now you think its a invisible specification for you
lovetox
like its your job that a picture displays inline in MY client
Ge0rG
lovetox: XEPs are about interoperability between systems. If I see an image that I send inline, I expect your client to also display it inline, maybe with the exception that you explicitly disabled inline media.
Ge0rG
lovetox: as a client author, if I want to tell other clients to display a certain file inline, I now need to know that OOB has to be used (despite OOB not being made for inline media), and that I need to set the body to the URL, leave empty the description and send whatever text I want to accompany that image as a separate message. None of that is written down anywhere.
lovetox
There can be an endless settings go into the decision of a client if something is displayed inline
lovetox
you should not expect anything
lovetox
you should provide all data necessary to display something inline
lovetox
but thats about it
Ge0rG
lovetox: but you can keep pretending that there is no "inline media" and that all your client does is to use some creative rules to magically embed linked image files.
Ge0rG
> you should provide all data necessary to display something inline
Yes, this is exactly what the fuss is about
lovetox
The problem is that you want to dictate UI and behaviour on another client, on such a complex topic as displaying weblinks inline
kokonoehas left
Ge0rG
lovetox: see, we have a fundamental disagreement on the basic assumption.
Ge0rG
lovetox: you speak about displaying weblinks, I speak about inline media.
lovetox
same story sorry
Ge0rG
no, those are completely different.
Ge0rG
lovetox: given your premise, I agree with all you said.
lovetox
not at all, its all some file on a webserver
kokonoehas joined
Ge0rG
OOB is okay'ish for letting another client know that you reference a website or page of some sorts.
Ge0rG
but it's not how it's used by at least Conversations.
lovetox
So if i reference a website on facebook, the page shows inline
lovetox
thats my messenger, so i expect your client now to display it inline
lovetox
following your logic
Ge0rG
lovetox: please just stop.
Ge0rG
lovetox: as I said, we are speaking about two fundamentally different things.
Ge0rG
lovetox: please don't try to interpret what I said in the context of linking websites.
lovetox
I know you speak about pictures, but i already told you i dont accept your argument that this is not the same
lovetox
both can be displayed inline, both are displayed inline in real world by clients
Ge0rG
lovetox: yes, but the message is different.
Ge0rG
inline media: "here is a picture that I attach to my message"
website reference: "here is a random weblink with which your client may do whatever it wants"
lovetox
so your argument is SIMS does not support weblinks
lovetox
so there is no way to tell other clients to show it inline
lovetox
hence you cant expect it to do it
Ge0rG
lovetox: what?
Ge0rG
I have never said anything about website references. I've been exclusively talking about inline media
Ge0rG
even in my first message, I explicitly wrote that.
lovetox
yeah so if SIMS would support sharing a website reference, and SIMS = Inline Media, then you would expect to see the website displayed inline?
Ge0rG
lovetox: sorry, I can't follow you.
lovetox
how do you tell a client to show a media inline?
Ge0rG
it looks a bit like you are trying to ask me trick questions to make me issue absurd statements.
lovetox
just by using SIMS right?
lovetox
its not a trick question, i think i understand what you are trying to say
lovetox
SIMS is not for website references
Ge0rG
exactly!
lovetox
oob does not say in the xep anything about inline
Ge0rG
yes!
Ge0rG
SIMS is designed for inline media only
Ge0rG
it's a bit overengineered, but nevertheless.
Ge0rG
so for website references, you use something else than SIMS.
Ge0rG
you might use OOB, or just rely on the receiving client to parse the URL out of your body
lovetox
just for the record, i dont think anybody is opposed to implement SIMS over oob
lovetox
1. SIMS was not really a thing when this was implemented
lovetox
2. OOB is alot less to implement for clients
lovetox
so thats why this was chosen
Ge0rG
Yes, but it's still abuse of OOB.
Ge0rG
Also with OOB for inline media, you need to HEAD the URL to fetch the file type and size, before you can make any reasonable action with it or display an icon to the user
lovetox
i still dont see where the abuse is, the oob xep even shares a picture in its example
lovetox
so yes this XEP was clearly intended to share also links to media on the web
Nekithas joined
Ge0rG
but not for inline media in the client. ;)
lovetox
how you come to that conclusion is not clear to me, there is no way to indicate a inline display hint in oob, and your conclusion is : Its an abuse to show it inline
Ge0rG
no, it's an abuse for a sender to use OOB for inline media
Ge0rG
and for the recipient to imply that body==url --> inline media
lovetox
if your goal is to get more clients to use SIMS, i think you will be more successuful if you hint at the benefits that SIMS has over oob, like communicating the inline wish. Instead of shouting Abuse
Ge0rG
lovetox: do you know which clients implement SIMS?
Zash
Communicating hashes for integrity checks, ability to use different transports, thumbnails, what else are benefits of SIMS?
pep.
"Ge0rG> lovetox: no, only that I'm the one who has to decide _how_ I intended my message to be shown" something something 393 /me hides
Holger
> lovetox: do you know which clients implement SIMS?
Movim IIRC?
lovetox
Ge0rG, Movim, Psi
lovetox
maybe converse, but not sure
Ge0rG
Zash: no need to do a HTTP HEAD
Holger
> Communicating hashes for integrity checks, ability to use different transports, thumbnails, what else are benefits of SIMS?
I think edhelas was interested in metadata such as the size to avoid HEAD requests.
Holger
Right.
Zash
Yeah, size and file type
Holger
And OMEMO people don't want to reveal that data. So I guess chances for implementation might be better once there's full stanza encryption.
Ge0rG
Speaking of OMEMO, https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/omemo-media-sharing.html combines the worst of both worlds.
Ge0rG
> The sending entity MAY also generate a thumbnail as a JPEG data uri and include that in the same message. The aesgcm:// and the data:image/jpep, are seperated by a new line character.