Link MauveWhy is SXE based on message instead of iq?
Link MauveAlso, why is it entirely ad-hoc instead of reusing e.g. MUC or PubSub primitives?
ZashWhy not?
Link MauveZash, because the semantics very much match iqs.
pep.SXE?
Link MauveXEP-0284.
pep.k
Chobbeshas left
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
Link MauveAlso, why is there both a Jingle initialisation and another initialisation based on messages afterward?
larmaLink Mauve, I guess so that you don't have to ack state changes? Not that I like it, but it could have been the motivation. And also doesn't apply to the initial state offer which really is exactly iq semantics.
winfriedhas left
larmaBecause someone said: "You should use Jingle for that"? 😀
Link MauveMost likely; I’ll have to go and read the council minutes from back then.
Shellhas joined
larmaSeems it was only added in 0.0.8, but there is no history from before 2010 in git 🙁
winfriedhas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
Link Mauvevirtual void send( const std::string& message, const std::string& subject, const StanzaExtensionList& sel = StanzaExtensionList() );
Link MauveAnd what if I want to send a message without a body and a subject…?
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
jonas’"", ""
jonas’\o/
Link Mauve/o\
jonas’std::optional?
Link MauveThis is an API I probably can’t modify.
jonas’pity
Link MauveI could add a new one I guess.
Link MauveStill not sure why I’m doing this in C++ and not in Rust.
jonas’because C++ is more awesome than this newfangled mess of "systems programming" languages :)
kokonoehas left
Link MauveI’m not doing systems programming though, just adding collaborativeness to a text editor.
ZashLink Mauve: Aaaah, CW those C++ lines plz!!!! NSFMybrain
Link MauveSorry, XEP-0382 still isn’t implemented in my client.
larmaLink Mauve, how is your council candidacy going? Not sure which timezone we are using for the deadline, but it's something like today...
Link MauveSome timezone. :)
Link MauveI’ll start working on it once I give up on this C++.
mukt2has joined
larmaYou can not become a candidate after the election 😉
Link MauveI know that!
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
dwdhas left
dwdhas joined
debaclehas left
adiaholichas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
mukt2has left
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
mukt2has joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
Ge0rGLink Mauve: just give up on it. I never thought I'd say that, but: RIIR!
ZashRIIC
Zash+Lua
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
jonas’we already have >5 candidates. I am amazed
jonas’and two new ones at that
Link MauveGe0rG, I wonder if Swiften might not be better than gloox.
Link MauveBut I’ll definitely have to fix the SXE spec too.
ZashLink Mauve: Existing thing already using gloox?
Link MauveNo, it isn’t collaborative yet.
jonas’larma, from your application
> That said, my criteria for accepting a XEP as experimental would be: […]
jonas’I think this misses an important part (which is even mentioned in XEP-0001 IIRC): "It should not duplicate existing protocols."
jonas’although that might be implicit in "It should solve a problem."
larmaYeah, I think it's implicit in there. A duplicate doesn't solve any problems
jonas’fair enough
jonas’in any case, thanks for running
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
Zashjonas’: How do you replace / improve on existing things without duplication?
ZashDoes XEP-0313 not duplicate some subset of XEP-0136?
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
kokonoehas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
pep.Ge0rG, https://i.imgur.com/10k62WA.png RIIR!
pep.larma, ^
ZashRIIR https://www.r-project.org/
pep.:D
marc_has left
marc_has joined
Mikaelahas left
Mikaelahas joined
Chobbeshas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
rionhas joined
larmapep., I will consider it for version 2.0 😉
pep.hahaha
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
jonas’larma, re your council election again and since you have an interesting view about personal opinions:
One thing which has repeatedly come up is the debate between amending existing standards vs. creating new documents to add features (specifically around XEP-0045 and XEP-0060). Do you think this is a matter of opinion or "taste"? If not, what is the objectively correct way? If it is, how would voting on this question work with your goal to avoid personal preferences?
jubalhhas left
jubalhhas joined
mukt2has left
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
pep.jonas’, tbh, I don't care which, but I want things to move
pep.I think it's similar for larma(?)
Nekithas joined
larmajonas’, I just put something related to that topic on my candidacy page.
1. I think both 45 and 60 should probably be Final already. Most of the changes actually applied to them could be done to Final XEPs as well.
2. Many of the changes proposed to 45 and 60 could also be standalone XEPs.
3. Even if things are not properly defined, it can be later clarified that they are not part of that specification and (even opposing) proposals can then be made in new XEPs (for example IQ routing in 45).
pep.To me it's exactly the same if somebody modifies a XEP or recreates a new XEP amending the first one. it's just the form. We as a group could settle on sth if necessary
jonas’larma, thanks
larmapep., yes and no: the rules how things are advanced to Draft should also apply to significant changes and that won't be possible without a new XEP.
Danielhas left
jonas’larma, I think you make a very good point in that
Danielhas joined
pep.larma, but in the end, you add a new disco feature anyway
jonas’and at that point it’s questionable whether namespace bumps should be needed at all anymore... but that’s a bigger topic, too big for me right now (-> afk)
larmaI would like to get rid of "namespace bumps" and introduce "new namespaces" in new XEPs (which might just look like a namespace bump, i.e. can have only a version number added/increased)
pep."which might just look like a namespace bump", it's exactly the same to me indeed. and I'm fine with both, as long as things move
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
ZashHuh?
pep.?
ZashNamespaced mini-extension protocols without breaking everything using the previous version/namespace?
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
pdurbinhas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
pep."without breaking everything using the previous version/namespace", we're not magicians
ZashSomething something like semantic versioning? You can to some extent add new stuff without replacing the namespace.
waqashas joined
waqashas left
waqashas joined
pep.You mean "clarify"
ZashNo
ajhas left
ZashI mean add new features
ZashSomething supporting the previous version won't know about those features, so no problem.
pep.Yeah ok that's fine. I'm mostly talking about breaking stuff
ZashI'm confused
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
Mikaelahas left
Mikaelahas joined
Mikaelahas left
larmaNamespace bumps should in general be barely needed IMO. Most of it can be done using disco and just additional elements
larmabut of course it's so much easier to just break things and do a namespace bump
ZashSometimes
larmaWell it's easier for the XEP author, not easier for the developers 😉
flowI don't think that you can make a specific statement, it really depends on the specific case.
flowerr "generic statement"
larmaTrue.
larmaI am also not against new namespaces, I just feel they belong in a new XEP
pdurbinhas left
flowA fresh experimental XEP only a few months old where are developers, and that includes implementing developers, are in the same groupchat is probably easier to namespace bump than a year old xep in draft state
larmaIf it's easy to namespace bump, it's also easy to just not namespace bump. That's exactly the point
flowso what's your stance on jingle ft then? should be collect improvements and bump it?
larmaflow, not sure what improvements are you talking about?
larmaIMO Jingle FT should be at least Draft already, so if there are significant changes required they should go in a new XEP
flowI wouldn't be suprised to find some if I am going to implement it.
ZashMaybe what we should do is bump the namespace of Experimental XEPs even more often, so everyone either gets used to it or gets together and makes it Draft?
flowlarma, so what is the advantage if having a new XEP versus a major overhaul of the existing? (note that i have no strong opinion in that direction, just wanting to hear the rationale behind it)
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
larmaZash, would actually be fine as well. Point is: Experimental XEPs should be deployed in wild, so any changes (if they bump namespace or not) shouldn't have any influence on any running systems.
flowI'm not opposed to having Jingle-FT-2, but it doesn't feel like the question if we should new-xep or bump-the-existing-xep is something that tackles our most important issues
rionJingle-ft is fine as for me. Maybe separate XEPs may describe various meta information for it. Like it was done with thumbnails. Jingle-s5b needs fixes
larmaflow, If it's a new protocol it should get a new XEP number so we have a proper name/identifier for the protocol.
ZashJingle FT Base and a File Metadata XEP?
larma"My server supports archives." "Which version?" "XEP-0313" isn't really helpful
Zashlarma, "XEP-0313 v0.6" tho?
Zash== `urn:xmpp:mam:2`
goffihas left
goffihas joined
larmaSo we don't define protocols in XEPs anymore but in XEP versions?
larmaand a different version could be a completely different protocol?
ZashThat's how it is now
larmaOnly for very few XEPs, and I consider this an issue.
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
Ge0rGSo we should define protocols by namespaces instead?
ZashDon't we already, in a way?
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
Ge0rGOn the wire, but not in the documentation.
flowlarma> flow, not sure what improvements are you talking about?
That is actually a nice example for one of the major issues we have. We are incredibly bad at collecting and organizing protocol feedback, leave allone incooperating it into a new protocol revision
Ge0rGSpeaking of which, do I need to rewrite CS-2020 now in terms of feature namespaces? Which version of MAM should it require? From clients? From servers?
ZashThis seems like pain that comes naturally from having protocols under development be implemented and deployed in the wild.
larmaWe don't always change namespace for protocol changes of Experimental XEPs
flowGe0rG, "From Client? From servers"? What is the issue if the compliance suites that state xep313 (and that implies the current state of xep313)?
rionAh yes. Jingle-ft needs some clarification how to properly finish file transfer. For example when we have multiple files in one session. Or when final checksum isn't sent
larmaProbably nobody would care to bump the references namespace if 372 is changes...
kokonoehas left
flowlarma, I think there is a sensible policy that protocol changes that break interoperability require a namespace bump in place
Ge0rGlarma: normally we do bump, except under very closely defined conditions.
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
Zash> that break interoperability
This!
Ge0rGflow: that it's not clear at which moment of time that version is pinned. On January 1st?
flowGe0rG, who said something about pinning the version? :)
larmaGe0rG, I had the feeling we bump if it would break interoperability of live deployments. As per XEP-0001 there shouldn't be live deployments of Experimental XEPs so there shouldn't be namespace bumps. Draft XEPs should and Final XEPs must not break interoperability, so no chance of a namespace bump there.
Ge0rGWe _normally_ don't bump if it doesn't affect interoperability, but this is not what larma was asking about?
Ge0rGflow: you implied that. Otherwise, what happens if a namespace is bumped during the CS year?
flowGe0rG, larma wrote about "protocol changes". we obviously don't bump for every protocol change
larmaThe problem is that we fail to move XEPs to Draft fast enough so that everybody started considering Experimental or even Deferred XEPs as if they were Draft
Zashlarma, isn't that the root problem? Experimental deployed in the wild?
ZashLC all the XEPs!
flowGe0rG, then the compliance suite refers to the current state of the xep
Ge0rGflow: so you say the CS defines a moving target?
ZashShould the compliance suite even be allowed to reference Experimental XEPs outside the "future stuff" section?
flowZash, or, maybe even better, make XEPs IETF style immutable
Ge0rGZash: should we have a process in place that moves Experimental XEPs forward when they are needed?
Zashflow, I kinda like that, but not enough to rewrite XEP-0001 for it
flowGe0rG, XEPs are, to some degree, always a moving target
larmaGe0rG, IMO CS shouldn't be able to point to Experimental XEPs so that it cannot point to a moving target
larma*highly moving target
flowAnd I don't see the point in pinning XEPs to particular namespace in the compliance suites
Ge0rGlarma: that would stall XEP progress even more
flowWhat Ge0rG said
larmaWhy?
emushas left
flowI have the feeling because XEPs have a hard time transitioning from 'experimental' to 'draft'
Ge0rGlarma: developers have hardly the time to implement one version of the most relevant XEPs. How are they supposed to implement multiple versions?
larmaWhy should they be required to implement multiple versions just because we move experimental to draft?
Ge0rGCan we please focus on realistic ideas, given the overall xsf time budget?
kokonoehas joined
ZashPlz no
flowGe0rG, I too, fail to see where the "multiple versions" now comes from
Zashflow, ns bump transitions?
flowZash, yes, but why do developers have to implement multiple namespaces if the compliance suites are not allowed to point to experimental XEPs?
Ge0rGIf we have one version in the CS and then the XEP is bumped, nobody will implement the new one.
Ge0rGSpeaking of time budget, I'm out.
adiaholichas left
Chobbeshas left
adiaholichas joined
Chobbeshas joined
larmaGe0rG, You mean if there is one version in CS and there is a new Experimental XEP replacing it, it's not going to be widely implemented? Yes that's the whole idea of Experimental XEPs. As soon as it becomes Draft, the (next) CS can point to the new version. No need to implement two versions at the same time.
Chobbeshas left
Ge0rGlarma: and then next year everybody already has implemented the changes, disables the old version and enables the new one at midnight, January 1st?😉
ZashFlag days?
larmaGe0rG, well transitions are certainly a problem when breaking backwards compatibility, but that isn't any difference to the current situation. I do agree we should try to not namespace bump as long as possible, a new XEP doesn't imply a new namespace as it can also build on top of an existing XEP.
dwdhas left
dwdhas joined
Ge0rGlarma: just because you call it "new XEP" it doesn't automatically give people the time to implement it and maintain it aside to the old one
Ge0rGReality is, some developers will keep multiple versions in parallel, sometimes in different modules with different feature sets. Other will just bump in the least uncomfortable version release
Ge0rGThat would break CS compatibility with pinned namespaces
larmaI don't see the point you want to make here
pep.“Zash> isn't that the root problem? Experimental deployed in the wild?” not put like this but yes. The problem is that we live stuff lingering as experimental. So yes, LC more things
Ge0rGPeople wouldn't adopt new versions, meaning that the CS won't be updated in a meaningful way
pep.“Zash> I kinda like that, but not enough to rewrite XEP-0001 for it“, what's wrong about rewriting 0001?
Zashpep., thanks for volonteering
pep.People are afraid of change and that's the one thing I want to stop, it's quite annoying
pep.Zash, I'm sure I'm not alone
pep.And can we stop this "blame game", or pushing stuff onto each other game
pep.I'm sure we can manage to do stuff collectively and not just as one person at a time
pep.Yes we're all volonteers, so what
ZashWelcome to volonteer based organizations.
ZashGetting volonteers to do things is Hard.
pep.I believe we can do better than pushing stuff onto each other because
larmaGe0rG, The CS isn't supposed to be "This is what everyone else implements" but "This is what everyone should implement". Thus you can update the CS to the new version even without everyone implementing if you think it should be. You can also say something "you are still CS compliant this year if you implement the old standard, but next year we will probably require the new one". However I wouldn't call a client or server Advanced CS2020 compliant that only implements mam:tmp, it should probably be at least mam:1
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
larma"This is what everyone should implement" -> "This is what Council suggests everyone should implement"
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
larmaZash, "Getting volonteers to do things is Hard." especially if they ask to help and receive the answer "it's none of your business"
larma(not meaning you)
ZashIs that something someone said here?
larmaIt did happen in the past yes.
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
Zashpep., FWIW, nothing wrong with rewriting XEP 0001, just not a current priority for me.
pep.Zash, what I meant by that is, if we have to rewrite 0001, then so be it. I won't be afraid of it
pep.I'm annoyed by the "thou shalt not change XEP-xxxx" and all the fearmongering around changing things
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
pep.We cannot go ahead without changing things. XMPP would be dead already if it were not possible to do so. (Some still say it still is, but that's an opinion I'm happy to discard. Lots of changes happened in the previous years and change will come again)
mathijshas left
Ge0rGpep.: people even dared to change 0045
Zashpep., just do it!
KevSomewhere in the previous 300 messages someone mentioned me. If it's important, drop me a mail please.
mathijshas joined
ShellXMPP honestly feels like it's been reviving - especially with omemo being supported by more things now.
pep.I wouldn't especially name OMEMO, but ok :)
Chobbeshas joined
pep.That definitely played in the acceptance by users
Shellit's what got my circle using it instead of things like Signal, at least - encrypted group chats combined with being able to pick a client according to individual preferences is a big deal.
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
pep.I'd like to avoid security discussions right now when we're talking about process
Shellsorry!
pep.(Not that I want to prevent you from talking about this, just that this topic is a minefield, and we're already discussing another)
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
pep.well, we were..
mukt2has joined
Zashpep., so, where's your board|council application? 🙂
pep.I'm procrastinating it. Give me a sec..
mathijshas left
mukt2has left
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
marc_has left
marc_has joined
mathijshas joined
xalekhas joined
debaclehas joined
waqashas left
waqashas joined
waqashas left
waqashas joined
waqashas left
DebXWoodyhas joined
mukt2has joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
Douglas Terabytehas joined
dwdhas left
dwdhas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
mukt2has left
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
kokonoehas left
kokonoehas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
dwdhas left
matlaghas left
matlaghas joined
lskdjfhas left
lskdjfhas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
jubalhhas left
Chobbeshas left
Chobbeshas joined
Chobbeshas left
ZashWait really? XEP-0081: Jabber MIME Type https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0081.xml
ZashI was looking for this very thing the other day
kokonoehas left
Zashhaha what
Zashhttps://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0104.xml
kokonoehas joined
UṣLhas left
kokonoehas left
kokonoehas joined
winfriedhas left
winfriedhas joined
mukt2has joined
pdurbinhas joined
mukt2has left
marc_has left
pdurbinhas left
Ge0rGThis is shameful
jonas’PREFIXED ATTRIBUTES!
jonas’there is the precedent I needed!!
flowhmm the prefix in xep104 seems unnecessary
flowjust like the UTF-8 requirement in rfc3923 § 10
flowbut: yeah, using prefixes /o/ \o\ /o/
ZashOh no
flowalthough I'd rather use them only when there is no alternative
jonas’they can be used to reduce traffic, but (in most cases) not in an RFC-compliant way.
flowRFC-compliant way?
zachhas left
zachhas joined
ZashRFC says something about avoiding prefixes?
Zashhttps://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6120.html#streams-ns-declarations sounds like a relevant heading
Zash> It is conventional in the XMPP community for implementations to not generate namespace prefixes for elements that are qualified by extended namespaces
https://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6120.html#stanzas-extended
Zashjonas’: so, we-dont-do-that-here.jpg
Zash> Routing entities (typically servers) SHOULD try to maintain prefixes when serializing XML stanzas for processing, but receiving entities MUST NOT depend on the prefix strings to have any particular value
E.g. Prosody will likely spit out such things as ns1:foo, ns2:bar etc
flowZash, does any of this talk about attributes?
ZashNot directly from what I can see
ZashWhy wouldn't that be the same as for elements?
XSF Discussion - 2019-11-03