XSF Discussion - 2020-02-26

  1. littlesmiley has left

  2. winfried has left

  3. winfried has joined

  4. debxwoody has left

  5. mukt2 has left

  6. mukt2 has joined

  7. moparisthebest has left

  8. andy has left

  9. strypey has joined

  10. mukt2 has left

  11. strypey has left

  12. strypey has joined

  13. mukt2 has joined

  14. raghavgururajan has left

  15. winfried has left

  16. strypey has left

  17. strypey has joined

  18. winfried has joined

  19. winfried has left

  20. winfried has joined

  21. winfried has left

  22. winfried has joined

  23. pdurbin has joined

  24. winfried has left

  25. Marc has left

  26. winfried has joined

  27. paul has left

  28. strypey has left

  29. strypey has joined

  30. winfried has left

  31. krauq has left

  32. krauq has joined

  33. wurstsalat has left

  34. winfried has joined

  35. pdurbin has left

  36. karoshi has left

  37. arc has left

  38. winfried has left

  39. arc has joined

  40. winfried has joined

  41. mukt2 has left

  42. mukt2 has joined

  43. winfried has left

  44. andrey.g has joined

  45. winfried has joined

  46. strypey has left

  47. winfried has left

  48. winfried has joined

  49. winfried has left

  50. winfried has joined

  51. mukt2 has left

  52. arc has left

  53. arc has joined

  54. strypey has joined

  55. strypey has left

  56. strypey has joined

  57. mukt2 has joined

  58. mukt2 has left

  59. mukt2 has joined

  60. moparisthebest has joined

  61. mukt2 has left

  62. strypey has left

  63. strypey has joined

  64. pdurbin has joined

  65. strypey has left

  66. strypey has joined

  67. pdurbin has left

  68. adiaholic has joined

  69. mukt2 has joined

  70. strypey has left

  71. strypey has joined

  72. arc has left

  73. arc has joined

  74. adiaholic has left

  75. adiaholic has joined

  76. strypey has left

  77. Half-Shot[m] has left

  78. Yagiza has joined

  79. Half-Shot[m] has joined

  80. adiaholic has left

  81. mimi89999 has left

  82. mimi89999 has joined

  83. adiaholic has joined

  84. andy has joined

  85. mukt2 has left

  86. pdurbin has joined

  87. aj has joined

  88. mukt2 has joined

  89. aj has left

  90. mukt2 has left

  91. Nekit has joined

  92. lorddavidiii has joined

  93. paul has joined

  94. moparisthebest has left

  95. mukt2 has joined

  96. Tobias has joined

  97. adiaholic has left

  98. adiaholic has joined

  99. j.r has left

  100. j.r has joined

  101. LNJ has joined

  102. mukt2 has left

  103. xelxebar has left

  104. debxwoody has joined

  105. strypey has joined

  106. winfried has left

  107. winfried has joined

  108. strypey has left

  109. strypey has joined

  110. mukt2 has joined

  111. wurstsalat has joined

  112. Ge0rG has left

  113. adiaholic has left

  114. adiaholic has joined

  115. strypey has left

  116. rion has left

  117. paul has left

  118. moparisthebest has joined

  119. mukt2 has left

  120. emus has joined

  121. mukt2 has joined

  122. mukt2 has left

  123. paul has joined

  124. Ge0rG has joined

  125. aj has joined

  126. mukt2 has joined

  127. mukt2 has left

  128. mukt2 has joined

  129. debxwoody has left

  130. mimi89999 has left

  131. mukt2 has left

  132. pdurbin has left

  133. mimi89999 has joined

  134. aj has left

  135. mukt2 has joined

  136. strypey has joined

  137. strypey has left

  138. strypey has joined

  139. xelxebar has joined

  140. matkor has left

  141. matkor has joined

  142. Dele (Mobile) has joined

  143. Dele (Mobile) has left

  144. Dele (Mobile) has joined

  145. Steve Kille has left

  146. strypey has left

  147. Jeybe has joined

  148. mukt2 has left

  149. karoshi has joined

  150. david has left

  151. Steve Kille has joined

  152. mukt2 has joined

  153. strypey has joined

  154. mukt2 has left

  155. Dele (Mobile) has left

  156. Dele (Mobile) has joined

  157. mukt2 has joined

  158. Ge0rG has left

  159. Ge0rG has joined

  160. Marc has joined

  161. mukt2 has left

  162. Dele Olajide has joined

  163. jeybe has joined

  164. alameyo has left

  165. alameyo has joined

  166. mukt2 has joined

  167. Dele (Mobile) has left

  168. Dele (Mobile) has joined

  169. strypey has left

  170. jeybe has left

  171. pdurbin has joined

  172. Steve Kille has left

  173. rion has joined

  174. debacle has joined

  175. Steve Kille has joined

  176. winfried has left

  177. winfried has joined

  178. winfried has left

  179. winfried has joined

  180. adiaholic has left

  181. adiaholic has joined

  182. winfried has left

  183. winfried has joined

  184. winfried has left

  185. winfried has joined

  186. winfried has left

  187. david has joined

  188. winfried has joined

  189. raghavgururajan has joined

  190. pdurbin has left

  191. Dele Olajide has left

  192. Dele (Mobile) has left

  193. adiaholic has left

  194. adiaholic has joined

  195. winfried has left

  196. winfried has joined

  197. winfried has left

  198. raghavgururajan has left

  199. raghavgururajan has joined

  200. winfried has joined

  201. jonas’

    This is especially annoying if you are on mobile (*)

  202. jonas’

    only if you have functions enabled which are designed to make your life harder by taking control away *scnr*

  203. Zash

    Is there any reason why you couldn't include a form in the first step of an ad-hoc command? https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0050.xml#execute-simple

  204. emus has left

  205. Zash

    Assuming you know ahead of time what the form looks like, eg because it's standardized by xep-0133 or such

  206. mukt2 has left

  207. jonas’

    Zash, you could try, and I guess any sane service would allow it (because if it isn’t stateless, you run into fun DoS opportunities)

  208. winfried has left

  209. goffi has joined

  210. Zash

    Just got rid of a thing in a convenience wrapper for simple commands that required that one-step commands be stateful.

  211. winfried has joined

  212. winfried has left

  213. goffi has left

  214. goffi has joined

  215. winfried has joined

  216. winfried has left

  217. winfried has joined

  218. winfried has left

  219. raghavgururajan has left

  220. raghavgururajan has joined

  221. winfried has joined

  222. mukt2 has joined

  223. raghavgururajan has left

  224. raghavgururajan has joined

  225. Marc has left

  226. Marc has joined

  227. Alex has left

  228. Alex has joined

  229. Zash has left

  230. Zash has joined

  231. raghavgururajan has left

  232. raghavgururajan has joined

  233. eevvoor has joined

  234. raghavgururajan has left

  235. raghavgururajan has joined

  236. winfried has left

  237. winfried has joined

  238. mukt2 has left

  239. mukt2 has joined

  240. raghavgururajan has left

  241. edhelas has left

  242. edhelas has joined

  243. raghavgururajan has joined

  244. winfried has left

  245. winfried has joined

  246. emus has joined

  247. edhelas has left

  248. marc0s

    hi, the `source control` link from `https://xmpp.org/about/standards-process.html#submitting-a-xep` points to `https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/xsf-source-control/` (which 404s) and should point to `https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/source-control.html`. I forked the repo and tried to test it locally but the dev server from isn't rendering the menu, don't know why. I think a plausible fix might be ```diff --git a/content/pages/about/standards-process.md b/content/pages/about/standards-process.md index 303616b..38d8bc1 100644 --- a/content/pages/about/standards-process.md +++ b/content/pages/about/standards-process.md @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ Here's how to submit a proposal to the XMPP Standards Foundation for considerati 2. Make sure you read, understand, and agree to the XSF’s [IPR Policy](/about/xsf/ipr-policy) before you submit your proposal! 3. Email the XML file (or a URL for the file) to the [Editor Team](mailto:editor@xmpp.org) with a subject line of "ProtoXEP: [your title here]". -Note: It is the author’s responsibility to provide a properly-formatted source file (see the [template](/extensions/xep-template.xml) file maintained under [source control](/about/xsf/xsf-source-control/)). Proposals submitted in HTML, TXT, MS Word, Open Document Format, etc. will be returned to the proposal author for proper formatting. +Note: It is the author’s responsibility to provide a properly-formatted source file (see the [template](/extensions/xep-template.xml) file maintained under [source control](/about/xsf/source-control.html)). Proposals submitted in HTML, TXT, MS Word, Open Document Format, etc. will be returned to the proposal author for proper formatting. #### Editor creates a ProtoXEP ```

  249. edhelas has joined

  250. raghavgururajan has left

  251. raghavgururajan has joined

  252. debacle has left

  253. marc0s

    also, the `xep-template.xml` file doesn't exist in the website repo, should it be linked to the raw version from the xeps repo maybe (https://raw.githubusercontent.com/xsf/xeps/master/xep-template.xml)?

  254. LNJ has left

  255. LNJ has joined

  256. pdurbin has joined

  257. edhelas has left

  258. edhelas has joined

  259. raghavgururajan has left

  260. debacle has joined

  261. pdurbin has left

  262. lorddavidiii has left

  263. lorddavidiii has joined

  264. Dele Olajide has joined

  265. littlesmiley has joined

  266. mukt2 has left

  267. Max has left

  268. Dele Olajide has left

  269. adiaholic has left

  270. j.r has left

  271. Dele Olajide has joined

  272. mukt2 has joined

  273. Max has joined

  274. adiaholic has joined

  275. mukt2 has left

  276. adiaholic has left

  277. mukt2 has joined

  278. neshtaxmpp has left

  279. strypey has joined

  280. j.r has joined

  281. mukt2 has left

  282. mimi89999 has left

  283. mukt2 has joined

  284. mimi89999 has joined

  285. strypey has left

  286. lorddavidiii has left

  287. neshtaxmpp has joined

  288. lorddavidiii has joined

  289. pdurbin has joined

  290. lorddavidiii has left

  291. adiaholic has joined

  292. andy has left

  293. andy has joined

  294. lorddavidiii has joined

  295. lorddavidiii has left

  296. pdurbin has left

  297. lorddavidiii has joined

  298. lorddavidiii has left

  299. lorddavidiii has joined

  300. lorddavidiii has left

  301. lorddavidiii has joined

  302. jeybe has joined

  303. jeybe has left

  304. jeybe has joined

  305. Holger has left

  306. Holger has joined

  307. mukt2 has left

  308. mukt2 has joined

  309. emus has left

  310. calvin has joined

  311. mukt2 has left

  312. mukt2 has joined

  313. adiaholic has left

  314. adiaholic has joined

  315. jeybe has left

  316. winfried has left

  317. winfried has joined

  318. jonas’

    marc0s: the dev server doesn't render the menu for me either :(

  319. marc0s

    jonas’, thanks for the feedback

  320. jonas’

    marc0s: linking to the xeps repo sounds sane to me

  321. jonas’

    go ahead and make a PR against xmpp.org

  322. jonas’

    thank you

  323. mukt2 has left

  324. marc0s

    It also needs some updating, the dev server, as `python -m pelican.server` no longer works, at least with debian's packaged `pelican`, needed to use `pelican --listen`

  325. marc0s

    jonas’, I will then

  326. adiaholic has left

  327. calvin has left

  328. emus has joined

  329. adiaholic has joined

  330. Wojtek has joined

  331. pdurbin has joined

  332. adiaholic has left

  333. paul has left

  334. paul has joined

  335. adiaholic has joined

  336. mukt2 has joined

  337. pdurbin has left

  338. calvin has joined

  339. pep.

    yeah there are a few issues that could use some fixing on the website with newer python

  340. mukt2 has left

  341. Douglas Terabyte has left

  342. mukt2 has joined

  343. adiaholic has left

  344. adiaholic has joined

  345. Yagiza has left

  346. Yagiza has joined

  347. paul has left

  348. paul has joined

  349. paul has left

  350. paul has joined

  351. paul has left

  352. paul has joined

  353. paul has left

  354. paul has joined

  355. paul has left

  356. paul has joined

  357. adiaholic has left

  358. adiaholic has joined

  359. calvin has left

  360. calvin has joined

  361. littlesmiley has left

  362. mukt2 has left

  363. mukt2 has joined

  364. littlesmiley has joined

  365. Douglas Terabyte has joined

  366. littlesmiley has left

  367. mukt2 has left

  368. paul has left

  369. paul has joined

  370. larma has left

  371. mimi89999 has left

  372. stpeter has joined

  373. lovetox has left

  374. mukt2 has joined

  375. larma has joined

  376. pdurbin has joined

  377. calvin has left

  378. littlesmiley has joined

  379. stpeter has left

  380. matkor has left

  381. matkor has joined

  382. pdurbin has left

  383. Douglas Terabyte has left

  384. Douglas Terabyte has joined

  385. littlesmiley has left

  386. MattJ

    Regarding XEP-0313 deferred, please don't LC it

  387. MattJ

    I have an update incorporating existing feedback that I already received

  388. MattJ

    I posted this quite some time ago to people who inspired the feedback, I don't think I got any responses and I didn't follow-up

  389. MattJ

    But given the XEP is widely implemented already I didn't want to just push the changes without agreement that they were sensible

  390. MattJ

    I can dig up what I had done and post it to standards@ or something, or if people think I should just push it as a new revision I can do that

  391. eevvoor has left

  392. jonas’

    MattJ, please do that

  393. neshtaxmpp has left

  394. MattJ

    Which? :)

  395. jonas’

    the posting to standards@

  396. MattJ


  397. jonas’

    I wasn’t finished reading the message when I replied :D

  398. jonas’

    also, I thnik I’m one of those you pinged and I totally forgot about that and I’d love to check your changes.

  399. littlesmiley has joined

  400. MattJ

    Here's a diff I generated: https://matthewwild.co.uk/uploads/stdin-s2ilB8Kj

  401. MattJ

    I can dig up the XML from whichever checkout I had it in

  402. jonas’

    i see before-id/after-id fields

  403. jonas’

    I love it already

  404. jonas’

    {+ <field type='text-single' var='urn:example:xmpp:free-text-search'/>+}

  405. jonas’

    sugegstion: make this {clark}notated

  406. Marc has left

  407. Syndace has left

  408. Marc has joined

  409. Syndace has joined

  410. jonas’

    MattJ, I have a bit more of feedback on this, shall I dump it here or 1:1?

  411. MattJ

    If it's brain-dump style... an email? (i.e. TODO item for me)

  412. MattJ

    if it's interactive, I'm fine with here or 1:1

  413. jonas’

    brain dump

  414. jonas’

    email == jid?

  415. MattJ

    Email or 1:1 and I'll copy/paste it somewhere :)

  416. MattJ


  417. Daniel has left

  418. jonas’


  419. MattJ

    Received, thanks!

  420. Daniel has joined

  421. MattJ

    I'll aim to act on that by the end of next week

  422. jonas’

    that sounds amazing

  423. MattJ

    Still without an office, and my work schedule is suffering :)

  424. mukt2 has left

  425. mukt2 has joined

  426. Steve Kille has left

  427. calvin has joined

  428. Steve Kille has joined

  429. raghavgururajan has joined

  430. Daniel

    Question to the server developers. I'm assuming that by now you are all treating muc presence with the x user attribute as full joins. To you remember when you started doing so?

  431. Daniel

    With what version of your respective server software

  432. Daniel

    Wondering if it is time to remove the good old leave before join work around

  433. adiaholic has left

  434. adiaholic has joined

  435. MattJ

    Looks like it was Prosody 0.11 when we started rejecting GC 1.0 joins

  436. calvin has left

  437. calvin has joined

  438. MattJ

    So 2018-11-21

  439. Nekit has left

  440. Dele Olajide has left

  441. littlesmiley has left

  442. Dele Olajide has joined

  443. littlesmiley has joined

  444. lovetox has joined

  445. Visitor has joined

  446. Visitor has left

  447. j.r has left

  448. Tobias has left

  449. Tobias has joined

  450. mimi89999 has joined

  451. Maranda has left

  452. Maranda has joined

  453. j.r has joined

  454. raghavgururajan has left

  455. Shell has joined

  456. littlesmiley has left

  457. littlesmiley has joined

  458. mukt2 has left

  459. pdurbin has joined

  460. littlesmiley has left

  461. littlesmiley has joined

  462. eevvoor has joined

  463. mukt2 has joined

  464. eevvoor has left

  465. pdurbin has left

  466. Ge0rG

    There are still many pre 0.11 in the wild

  467. Zash

    Got stats?

  468. krauq has left

  469. krauq has joined

  470. emus has left

  471. winfried has left

  472. winfried has joined

  473. mukt2 has left

  474. Ge0rG

    Ask jonas

  475. littlesmiley has left

  476. Ge0rG

    I only have anecdata of Debian oldstable

  477. Yagiza has left

  478. Zash

    Debian stable has 0.11, oldstable-backports has 0.11, normal support for oldstable likely ends this year

  479. lovetox has left

  480. neshtaxmpp has joined

  481. lovetox has joined

  482. mukt2 has joined

  483. littlesmiley has joined

  484. Visitor2 has joined

  485. Dele Olajide has left

  486. emus has joined

  487. Dele Olajide has joined

  488. Visitor2 has left

  489. mukt2 has left

  490. Dele Olajide has left

  491. Dele Olajide has joined

  492. littlesmiley has left

  493. matkor has left

  494. matkor has joined

  495. littlesmiley has joined

  496. Dele Olajide has left

  497. Dele Olajide has joined

  498. littlesmiley has left

  499. lovetox has left

  500. !XSF_Martin has left

  501. !XSF_Martin has joined

  502. mukt2 has joined

  503. Dele Olajide has left

  504. larma has left

  505. Dele Olajide has joined

  506. flow

    IMHO usually the ideal point in time to drop compatibility workarounds or older protocol versions is when its about 2 years after the point in time when you should have dropped them

  507. larma has joined

  508. Zash

    So when do we drop the "MUST support GC 1.0" from XEP-0045?

  509. Dele Olajide has left

  510. flow

    now that is something we could drop

  511. flow

    Zash, it appears Smack removed GC 1.0 in 2006

  512. Zash

    Wait, did Ge0rG and I sneakily remove that MUST already or did I imagine it?

  513. Dele Olajide has joined

  514. Dele Olajide has left

  515. littlesmiley has joined

  516. Ge0rG

    flow [21:12]: > IMHO usually the ideal point in time to drop compatibility workarounds or older protocol versions is when its about 2 years after the point in time when you should have dropped them May I quote that in https://discourse.igniterealtime.org/t/smack-android-api-requirements/85767

  517. Ge0rG

    Zash: > Therefore, starting with version 1.32 of this specification, it is RECOMMENDED that a service receiving a <presence> without an <x> element from a non-occupant full-JID responds with an explicit kick to that client.

  518. Ge0rG

    Not only we removed the requirement to support GC1.0, we even discourage its use

  519. mukt2 has left

  520. Shell has left

  521. Shell has joined

  522. arc has left

  523. arc has joined

  524. flow

    Ge0rG, the latest release version of Smack requires Android API 9 or higher, and Android API 9 is Android ~10 years ago

  525. flow

    the upcoming version will bump to Android API 19, which is Android 4.4 released 7 years ago

  526. raghavgururajan has joined

  527. flow

    so I believe to be reasonable conservative when it comes to supporting old versions

  528. eevvoor has joined

  529. Zash

    Ge0rG, \o/

  530. eevvoor has left

  531. mukt2 has joined

  532. Ge0rG

    flow: yes, and now just add two more years...

  533. andrey.g has left

  534. flow

    Ge0rG, already did so two years ago ;)

  535. Ge0rG

    I think i have roughly a dozen patches on top of 4.3 now, either adding new features / XEPs, or providing access to internals which I need exposed, or working around real world implementation issues, like the Dino MUC

  536. Ge0rG

    flow: two years ago it was too early!

  537. Shell has left

  538. Shell has joined

  539. jeybe has joined

  540. littlesmiley has left

  541. littlesmiley has joined

  542. marc

    Ge0rG, you have the same problem with 389 as with regular IBR, right?

  543. rion has left

  544. littlesmiley has left

  545. littlesmiley has joined

  546. waqas has joined

  547. rion has joined

  548. raghavgururajan has left

  549. marc

    tbh, I don't see much advantage of 389 at all

  550. Ge0rG

    marc: no, I see a number of additional problems in 0389

  551. mukt2 has left

  552. Ge0rG

    proof-of-work just won't work against spammers

  553. marc


  554. marc

    Okay, maybe we can split 401 and PARS but somehow reference them as Daniel suggested (?) and we're done? :)

  555. Ge0rG

    marc: I think that a split doesn't make sense. Not for the UX and not technically

  556. marc

    Ge0rG, okay, but why didn't you respond to the mail then?

  557. marc

    I see a big advantage in easy account creation

  558. marc

    PARS on top is nice but not a must

  559. Ge0rG

    You don't have to add the contact from 0401. You could also add everybody who used the same token, like with the snikket Demo

  560. Ge0rG

    But those are not the main use case

  561. Ge0rG

    The really important case is adding a friend and having them in the roster automatically

  562. Ge0rG

    Daniel also made a bet on using the phone address book to automatically add contacts.

  563. Ge0rG

    My impression is that he considers this bet as failed now

  564. pdurbin has joined

  565. andrey.g has joined

  566. lskdjf has joined

  567. mukt2 has joined

  568. Ge0rG

    If you remove PARS from 0401, you'll end up with implementations that allow registration from an invitation token, but don't consistently add the contact, so you don't gain much

  569. Shell has left

  570. Shell has joined

  571. Ge0rG

    Alternatively, you could move the combined functionality into a third XEP, but what would be the benefit?

  572. Daniel

    To be fair half the implementations do that already

  573. marc

    Daniel, hm?

  574. marc

    do what?

  575. Daniel

    Implement the registration part but not the contact part

  576. marc

    Daniel, what exactly did you implement from 401, btw?

  577. Daniel

    The being 'invited' to a server part

  578. Tobias has left

  579. Tobias has joined

  580. Daniel

    And use the pars token to register

  581. littlesmiley has left

  582. marc

    Daniel, this means you send the token via ibr to the server?

  583. Daniel


  584. marc

    Daniel, via IBR or IQ?

  585. Daniel

    Well the weird pre ibr thing

  586. marc


  587. Daniel

    I don't have any feelings on that

  588. marc

    I hate it ^^

  589. Daniel

    That was just what's supported by prosody

  590. mukt2 has left

  591. lskdjf

    > marc: I think that a split doesn't make sense. Not for the UX and not technically Ge0rG, I'm also in favour of spliting the two processes. As a UX developer you want the user to get some sort of image of how the application works. And for "getting a contact into your roster", I'm trying to teach the user that this happens by clicking some specific button(s). If you now start to just magically add contacts to the contact list, you break the image I'm trying to convey. What I'd like to do is to add the contact and then perhaps display a dialog "Anna invited you, would you like to add her?". I know you want to make the whole process easier, but adding more concepts doesn't make understanding easier.

  592. marc

    lskdjf, good point

  593. debacle has left

  594. Daniel

    I think I said this on list but my interest in the registration part is to avoid open ibr for semi public servers (read hacker space, club) where you can stick a qr code on the wall and everyone who has physical access to the building can sign up. But spammers can't

  595. lskdjf

    s/What I'd like to do is to add the contact/What I'd like to do is to add the account

  596. Daniel

    I don't agree at all with the concept of so called easy xmpp

  597. Ge0rG

    lskdjf: that's interesting indeed. But then would you also introduce the concept of presence subscription and its bidirectionality?

  598. Daniel

    Which is fine. There can in fact be xeps that I don't agree with

  599. Daniel

    But I don't like to loose what in my eyes is a valid use case

  600. Ge0rG

    Daniel: the hacker space functionality is there, just use the domain JID URI

  601. marc

    Daniel, sure, my primary use case is a similar one

  602. Zash

    Hackerspace functionality whatnow?

  603. Ge0rG

    It's even implemented in yaxim and prosody already

  604. pdurbin has left

  605. marc

    Daniel, and sure, you don't have to agree on everything but I would like to have opinions from experienced devs

  606. Ge0rG

    Zash: > I think I said this on list but my interest in the registration part is to avoid open ibr for semi public servers (read hacker space, club) where you can stick a qr code on the wall and everyone who has physical access to the building can sign up. But spammers can't

  607. Daniel

    I know that it is covered. Conversations handles that. But it is a mess to comprehend due to the tight coupling with _shit I don't need_

  608. Zash

    Ge0rG, ah, ours was set up to limit registrations to the local IPv6 network

  609. mukt2 has joined

  610. Ge0rG

    Daniel: but it might be shit that your users need...

  611. Zash

    Everyones needs are different for some weird reason.

  612. marc

    What _shit_ are you talking about?

  613. Daniel

    Well the registration part hooks (at very least semantically) on pars

  614. Daniel

    Which by its name alone is something completely different

  615. lskdjf

    > lskdjf: that's interesting indeed. But then would you also introduce the concept of presence subscription and its bidirectionality? Ge0rG, depends on the application and how detailt the picture is they convey. The easier version would probably be to say that if "contact X on your roster/friend list" == "contact x gets your information"

  616. arc has left

  617. arc has joined

  618. Shell has left

  619. Shell has joined

  620. Ge0rG

    I could very well live with changing 0401 to "if the invitation is from a user bare JID, the receiving client shall perform a roster request with the token as a PARS token. The client may first ask the user for permission / guide them through the process"

  621. Ge0rG

    Would that satisfy Daniel and lskdjf?

  622. paul has left

  623. Daniel

    I actually read my email again and I think it brings my point across

  624. Daniel

    You say you don't want to separate the two because you are afraid someone will implement the registration without the subscription part

  625. Daniel

    I don't think that's something the xep author should decide

  626. Ge0rG

    Right, the main reason for the XEP should be optional.

  627. mukt2 has left

  628. mukt2 has joined

  629. marc

    Hm, what about less irony and more constrictive input? 🤔

  630. marc

    Since there is no good argument against IBR, I would like to keep this as-is, or is there a good argument?

  631. calvin has left

  632. MattJ

    Seems like I should have participated in this discussion, but I didn't see it was happening

  633. MattJ

    I don't care much about the protocol - if people don't like the iq thing, come up with something else

  634. matkor has left

  635. matkor has joined

  636. MattJ

    I think the argument about making the user do more work to add a contact they want to speak to, just to teach them a lesson is... not sound

  637. MattJ

    We already know the user intent, don't add more clicks or taps than we need to get the task done

  638. MattJ

    They can learn to add contacts next time they want to add a new contact

  639. winfried has left

  640. winfried has joined

  641. MattJ

    Getting someone onboarded to the network is enough work already

  642. MattJ

    We need to remove all the friction we can

  643. pep.

    "just to teach them a lesson" I can only read this in a pejorative way, is it how you mean it?

  644. MattJ

    Read it however you want :)

  645. pep.

    I don't think that's how lskdjf meant it anyway :)

  646. pep.

    To teach the user habits, patterns

  647. MattJ

    It doesn't matter, it's what it is doing

  648. MattJ

    You want to talk to a contact, but first we want you to go through some training

  649. pep.

    MattJ, no you got it in reverse

  650. moparisthebest

    to teach the user a lesson we need to implement a XEP I've always dreamed of "remote slapping of a user over the internet"

  651. pep.

    if you allow that to be one and only step, then next time they want to add somebody they'll be like "why did I have to do something this time?"

  652. MattJ

    That's nonsense

  653. MattJ

    Adding contacts is a familiar activity to anyone who wants to add a contact

  654. MattJ

    Throwing popups in the face of a new user is just not what we need more of right now

  655. pep.

    I wish we had real UX people to help us tbh. I'm not qualified for this

  656. pep.

    It seems to me we're all making stabs in the dark

  657. pep.

    not all all but ..

  658. Zash

    moparisthebest, search for "xep poke"

  659. Shell has left

  660. Shell has joined

  661. MattJ

    I don't claim to be a UX expert at all. But the effect of adding steps to an onboarding flow is well documented by now

  662. MattJ

    (and it's a negative one)

  663. mukt2 has left

  664. eevvoor has joined

  665. strypey has joined

  666. marc

    > I don't care much about the protocol - if people don't like the iq thing, come up with something else I already came up with something else ;)

  667. MattJ

    marc: where?

  668. marc

    In the XEP?

  669. MattJ

    The current revision?

  670. marc

    The 'regular' way via IBR

  671. Zash

    Rough consensus and running code!

  672. MattJ

    I see a lot of TODO

  673. marc

    True, not saying the XEP is ready just that there is another way how to provide the token

  674. MattJ

    I would need to dig up chat logs to remember the things that drove us to the preauth iq, but not depending on the old IBR was one reason

  675. raghavgururajan has joined

  676. MattJ

    The "new IBR" is not good enough (currently?) though

  677. marc

    What's the new ibr?

  678. marc

    I don't see any advantage of 398, if you mean that

  679. MattJ


  680. marc

    Whatever ;)

  681. marc

    Where is the advantage for 401?

  682. MattJ

    For 401 alone? None afaik

  683. MattJ

    For XMPP? It would be nice to have a more flexible registration flow in general

  684. MattJ

    (I repeat that today's 389 is not that, but it's a step in the right direction)

  685. mukt2 has joined

  686. raghavgururajan has left

  687. marc

    Yep, but that's off topic for 401 and how to provide the token

  688. raghavgururajan has joined

  689. MattJ

    Not if the answer is simply "do this preauth thing and register however you want"

  690. marc

    I'm afk now, but please let me know if there is a good reason for the IQ approach. I really dislike this approach 😶

  691. Zash

    ^ is why I dislike IBR, weird thing looking like an iq stanza long before that's supposed to be allowed

  692. MattJ

    I agree

  693. MattJ

    I'd love to move away from all iqs before bind

  694. Zash

    At least in Prosody it's not even treated as a stanza, just a weird "nonza" that happens to be in the "jabber:client" namespace

  695. calvin has joined

  696. Zash

    ... not anymore. Used to be an uncomfortable amount of of exceptions in a bunch of places that allowed iq stanzas on unauthenticated connections under certain conditions

  697. Zash

    So, it would be nice to get 389 moving again.

  698. jeybe has left

  699. Tobias has left

  700. Shell has left

  701. raghavgururajan has left

  702. mukt2 has left

  703. LNJ has left

  704. eevvoor has left

  705. mimi89999 has left

  706. gav has left

  707. lskdjf has left

  708. lskdjf has joined

  709. lskdjf has left

  710. lskdjf has joined

  711. lskdjf has left

  712. lskdjf has joined

  713. lskdjf has left

  714. lskdjf has joined

  715. Nekit has joined

  716. lskdjf has left

  717. lskdjf has joined

  718. calvin has left

  719. calvin has joined

  720. lskdjf has left

  721. lskdjf has joined

  722. mukt2 has joined

  723. pdurbin has joined

  724. lskdjf has left

  725. lskdjf has joined

  726. lskdjf has left

  727. lskdjf has joined

  728. pdurbin has left

  729. Wojtek has left

  730. strypey has left

  731. strypey has joined

  732. calvin has left

  733. mukt2 has left

  734. lskdjf has left

  735. emus has left

  736. lskdjf has joined

  737. karoshi has left

  738. lskdjf has left

  739. lskdjf has joined

  740. Jeybe has left

  741. raghavgururajan has joined

  742. mukt2 has joined

  743. lskdjf has left

  744. lskdjf has joined

  745. goffi has left

  746. raghavgururajan has left

  747. mukt2 has left

  748. raghavgururajan has joined

  749. strypey has left

  750. raghavgururajan has left

  751. marc0s

    should I do something special to have firefox render XEP's XML files? it complains about `XML Parsing Error: undefined entity` while chrome displays it without any problem

  752. lskdjf has left

  753. lskdjf has joined

  754. lskdjf has left

  755. lskdjf has joined

  756. lskdjf has left

  757. lskdjf has joined

  758. lskdjf has left

  759. lskdjf has joined

  760. lskdjf has left

  761. lskdjf has joined

  762. andy has left

  763. raghavgururajan has joined

  764. intosi has left