XSF Discussion - 2019-10-02

H

> XMPP has support for threading in RFC 6121 even, but no client does it because it’s unclear how to handle clients which don’t support or don’t want to support threads 🤔[1] 👍[2][*]

Like this? Asterisk means you (e.g. your other client which supports reactions) reacted.

I would drop the info who used which reaction for clients not supporting it.

You can still find out by seeng who send the last reaction and comparing what changed.

> but how to filter it out for clients that support it 🤔 Maybe two bodys. Reaction body and the legacy citation body. Like OMEMO does.

But how to get rid of the overhead once it's widespread supported? Make it a 'SHOULD include legacy citation body' in the XEP, support it in the beginning and drop it in clients when you think it's no more necessary?

j.r, also, that makes UX massively worse for clients which deliberately don’t support threads (because threads aren’t everyones cup of tea)

“xmpp:council@muc.xmpp.org/?join”, not to pick on Tedd (that appeared in his last email), I'm just curious if that's valid with the “/”

it’s not

methinks

either it is "xmpp:" + jid + "?join", in which case `jid` is not a valid jid (empty resource), or it’s "xmpp:" + jid + "/?join" which has unspecified semantics

As the JID part is technically a path in the URI, I wouldn't even categorically deny it being possible

yes, but the semantics in any case aren’t what they are intended to be

is it written down somewhere that a bare JID must not have a trailing /

iirc it's written that the resource cannot be empty

and by logical extension there is no valid JID that ends with '/'

this is PRECIS land, then

MattJ, correct

xmpp: URI handling is badly integrated anyway.

I can confirm the variant with nothing between / and ? is not valid

The relevant production in RFC 5122 is: pathxmpp = [ nodeid "@" ] host [ "/" resid ]

is resid limited to minimum 1 character though?

re: "/?join" -- I just copied from one of Dave's mails, so I can claim innocence :D

:P

dwd: Minimum 1 byte probably

is XEP-0172: User Nickname still used ?

I'm wondering if some modern clients actively uses that one

if not I might remove the +notify in Movim and delete the related column in the db

edhelas, afaik at least conversations and gajim use it