-
oxpa
guys, any chances xmpp.jp admins are here? I have troubles reaching conference.xmpp.jp from jabber.ru and find out what the problem is.
-
oxpa
or may be you can ask xmpp.jp guys contact me through twitter or directly at oxpa@jabber.ru?
-
Ge0rG
oxpa: Contact Info> admin: mailto:support@xmpp.jp https://www.xmpp.jp/contact abuse: mailto:support@xmpp.jp https://www.xmpp.jp/contact support: mailto:support@xmpp.jp https://www.xmpp.jp/contact
-
Ge0rG
oxpa: if you have trouble contacting them via s2s, they will have trouble contacting you as well ;)
-
oxpa
no-no, s2s works per se. I can contact any user@xmpp.jp. Only conferences 'behave'
-
oxpa
also, i wrote aletter to support@xmpp.jp - no luch✎ -
oxpa
also, i wrote aletter to support@xmpp.jp - no luck ✏
-
moparisthebest
I hate asking this... does anyone know of a facebook messenger transport? I of course tried searching but can only find articles about facebook turning off XMPP support years ago
-
pep.
nothing in libpurple?
-
Ge0rG
Last time I used spectrum2
-
moparisthebest
ah may be https://github.com/dequis/purple-facebook/wiki "Protocol: Facebook (NOT Facebook (XMPP))"
-
moparisthebest
that was another problem, every time I found some integration, it was XMPP based, which no longer works :'( terrible
-
moparisthebest
facebook has a newish "kids messenger" app that uses the parent's facebook for access control, and wife keeps getting invites for my kids, meanwhile I haven't had much traction in "just have them install Conversations instead" department :'(
-
Zash
Snikket?
-
moparisthebest
3.
-
moparisthebest
oops, well it's main features appear to be "stickers" and "video chat with stupid overlays" with text chat way down on the list, not sure if XMPP can compete in those departments
-
Zash
Of course not
-
moparisthebest
mainly XMPP is lacking in the "creepy spying and data collection by facebook" department though
-
Daniel
When I configure something via data forms. For example a muc or a pubsub node. And I send an incomplete data form. Will the missing fields be left untouched or configured to the forms default?
-
MattJ
Guess
-
MattJ
and whatever you guess, we can document
-
MattJ
;)
-
MattJ
I'm not aware of any text around this, I think it probably depends on context, but I wouldn't rely on it being the same across implementations
-
MattJ
The "depends on context" thing comes from the fact that I believe XEP-0004 primarily grew out of a protocol that was designed for presentation
-
MattJ
rather than machine-to-machine configuration
-
larma
apropos data forms: In XEP-0068 it says that "If the FORM_TYPE field is not type="hidden", it does not have the special meaning defined herein." and "If the FORM_TYPE field is not hidden, it MUST be ignored as a context indicator.". In XEP-0004 it says that "For data forms of type "submit", inclusion of the 'type' attribute is OPTIONAL". So, for data forms of type "submit" it still seems to be required to add the type="hidden" for FORM_TYPE according to XEP-0068, yet most clients seem to not send it and most servers seem to ignore that - and many XEPs also don't do it accordingly in their examples. Should we note in XEP-0068 that specifying type="hidden" is optional in forms of type "submit"?
-
lovetox
on this occassion i want to point to issue 1511 !
-
lovetox
:D
-
MattJ
Ha, I missed that
-
lovetox
Daniel, but how would you come into this situation, do you want to reduce traffic and not requesting the Data Form from the server? rather just send a incomplete one where you know some fields will probably be supported?
-
Zash
1511 in what repo?
-
Daniel
lovetox: the library I'm using weirdly doesn't have a method to submit a form / and or change only one specific value in a previously downloaded form
-
Zash
How about a left-out field preserves the existing value, or the default in case you're creating something.
-
Zash
Now let's discuss (nothing) vs <field/> vs <field><value/></field>
-
lovetox
Zash a issue on your tracker
-
Zash
Ah that
-
lovetox
but since you include a register fields as backup for clients that dont support dataforms, i guess this issue was not discovered until now :)
-
Zash
Isn't this more on-topic in the Prosody roomq
-
Zash
s/q/?/
-
lovetox
oh damn
-
lovetox
i thought i was in the prosody room
-
lovetox
because i saw you and mattj :D
-
lovetox
sorry for the offtopic
-
flow
larma, I'd love to discuss this but failed to follow the question
-
flow
what in xep68 makes type=hidden required in submit?
-
larma
0068 says that FORM_TYPE does not have any meaning and MUST be ignored as a context indicator if it's not type=hidden. Thus when submitting a form, adding FORM_TYPE without type=hidden is same as not adding it.
-
Zash
This seems silly somehow
-
larma
agree, my suggestion would be that we state in 0068 that in forms with type='submit' the field type='hidden' is optional
-
larma
because that's what we do in practice anyway ๐
-
larma
it's also codified in examples in many XEPs
-
Zash
Fine with me. PR it?
-
Zash
types being optional in type=submit forms is funky in its own ways
-
flow
Tbf I still don't see the issue, but if you agree on it and maybe the PR makes it clear
-
flow
Zash, why?
-
flow
(assuming you are talking about FORM_TYPES?)✎ -
Zash
Context of https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0128.html
-
Zash
Oh those are result
-
larma
great, so it's invalid form according to 0004 ๐
-
Zash
flow: Imagine you get a form with a bunch of <field>s, none of which have type set. Fields can have 0, 1 or more <value>s.
-
Zash
> For data forms of type "submit", inclusion of the 'type' attribute is OPTIONAL, since the form-processing entity is assumed to understand the data types associated with forms that it processes.
-
Zash
Sensible
-
larma
yes, it's ok for submit, not for any other forms
-
Zash
So .. no problem then?
-
flow
(ignore me) ✏
-
larma
well, xep 0068 overwrites that part of 0004 by saying that if it doesn't have type='hidden' it shall not be considered as 0068 FORM_TYPE
-
flow
ahh I think now I got what larma means
-
flow
but for submit the FORM_TYPE can be ignored by the receiving entity anyways
-
flow
is that I would assume
-
larma
it might be, yes
-
larma
but then it is also optional to send it
-
larma
and I don't think that's the case in all scenarios either
-
flow
probably true
-
larma
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#requestvoice
-
flow
the question is if there is a link to the previous form somewhere in the outer shell of the submited form
-
larma
^ relies on FORM_TYPE = "http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#request" yet doesn't set type='hidden'
-
Zash
larma, but type=submit and the form is supposed to be understood by the receiver
-
lovetox
not sure why the form type can be ignored in a submit form, does this assume all forms are only sent as IQ and the server is able to track what context the form has?
-
flow
Zash, how can the receiver identify the form if he is supposed to ignore FORM_TYPE?
-
Zash
Tho it makes it tricky if you want to add more kinds of those flows
-
lovetox
what if someone sends me a form as message, and i send the form back as message
-
lovetox
how would the receiver ever get the context of the form?
-
flow
lovetox, in general they can be tracked, but larma just provided an counterexample
-
lovetox
not as message, the receiver would have to place some hidden tracking id into the form
-
lovetox
also a message allows for multiple forms in the same message
-
Zash
Hm, how did we implemente that
-
flow
Zash, probably by looking at FORM_TYPE (and not following the strict interpretation of xep68 ยง 4.3)
-
lovetox
larma, thats clearly a error in the example
-
larma
flow, to be fair, according to XEP 0045 the only form that you can send by message is the voice request form, still that would be rather crazy code to assume all message[type=normal]+form[type=submit] to a muc bare jid is to be considered a voice request or approval
-
flow
larma, yep
-
larma
and I bet servers do check the FORM_TYPE ๐
-
Zash
Yup, it checks the FORM_TYPE
-
flow
lovetox, besides that there a probably more examples like these in the xep, i'd also assume that this is typical behavior in the wild
-
flow
bbl
-
larma
Zash, and also accept it when not having type='hidden' I assume?
-
lovetox
hm what do you mean, i get many forms i never saw a server send me formtype with type != hidden
-
lovetox
that would obviously result in the client showing this field to the user
-
lovetox
because its not hidden
-
lovetox
really i impl forms since years and we have many workflows with forms, and this never ever happend even once
-
lovetox
so not buying that argument that people dont set the type in the wild
-
Zash
larma: Yeah it ignores the type.
-
lovetox
and this rule make sense
-
lovetox
if its no hidden, its presented to the user
-
lovetox
as editable field
-
lovetox
this means he could change the context on the submit
-
flow
larma> agree, my suggestion would be that we state in 0068 that in forms with type='submit' the field type='hidden' is optional +1
-
larma
lovetox: this is only about forms with type=submit, which you normally don't display in user interfaces
-
flow
FORM_TYPE feels like a displaced hack anyways. I wonder why do don't have a form-namespace attribute in <{jabber:x:data}x/>
-
Zash
When does a server even look at a form of any type but submit?
-
larma
lovetox, You display type=form and type=result and in those it should still be required to have it hidden because we don't want to display it to users
-
lovetox
but what you now are saying, type submit is never shown in a GUI
-
lovetox
can we make that assumption?
-
Zash
Sending a type=submit form to someone that was not expecting it .. seems unlikely to me
-
lovetox
ok but there is a type=result
-
Zash
And if they're expecting it then they should already have the form locally, and thus know the form type
-
Zash
type=result require <field type=...> right?
-
lovetox
hm no when i read it correctly
-
lovetox
only form needs type
-
lovetox
everything else MAY include types
-
lovetox
and submit its OPTIONAL
-
Zash
Mabye it needs to be clarified that you would never send a from type=submit to an entity that doesn't already know what the form looks like
-
lovetox
i scrolled back but i dont get how or where this is a problem, how did this question get raised?
-
Zash
Normal flow would be that I send you a form-from, then you return a submit-form, and I give you back a result form.
-
Zash
flow: Agree on the hacky feeling.
-
Zash
Inconsistent to include the field type on the other field in https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#example-80
-
larma
http://www.aptest.com/standards/htmldiff/htmldiff.pl?oldfile=https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0068.html&newfile=https://larma.de/xeps/xep-0068.html
-
Zash
๐๏ธ