XSF Discussion - 2020-08-08

  1. MattJ

    XEP-0084 historical thread: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2005-April/007439.html

  2. MattJ

    Doesn't explain the PNG-only change, but clarifies that other formats were expected to be fallbacks

  3. lovetox

    this must be an oversight or mistake, maybe it was by accident

  4. Zash

    I haven't read it as png only. Rather that one of the possibility multiple formats must be png, but you can publish alternative formats

  5. MattJ

    The first point in section 3 says: "1. User publishes avatar data for "image/png" content-type to data node and optionally publishes other content-types to HTTP URLs."

  6. MattJ

    That sounds very much like only PNG data is welcome in the PEP node, and the rest of the doc seems to back up such an interpretation

  7. Zash


  8. Zash

    Pointless limits, let's remove them. Mandating that at least one format be widely supported is good, but today jpeg and gif should be fine along with png.

  9. flow

    serious question: why would you want to have your avatar in multiple formats? shouldn't png just always be fine?

  10. Zash

    Jpeg deals better with photos

  11. edhelas


  12. Zash

    But you could also have a higher resolution available as alternative version

  13. Zash

    webp doesn't work everywhere

  14. Zash

    You could have it as alternative format if you wanted

  15. Zash

    Or you could have png+svg.

  16. Daniel


  17. larma

    make svg required and then don't base64 encode the svg, but just embed it. If you still wanted to use other image formats, you can embed them in svg

  18. lovetox

    larma, why though seems complicated

  19. lovetox

    i read a file from my harddisk in bytes, pass it to the b64encode and im finished, i dont have to care if that svg is valid xml at all

  20. lovetox

    i dont want to care if something is a svg, then i have to read, decode it, add the xml to as child etc, and if its another format i have to base64 encode it .. make everything just more complex

  21. lovetox

    for a bit less size on a payload which is rarley requested at all

  22. lovetox

    also png is fine as almost all supports it

  23. lovetox

    its the other way around, publish png, and if you want something more add other formats

  24. lovetox

    flow, on desktop we often deal with hidpi displays

  25. lovetox

    we need to scale the avatar x2 or even x3

  26. lovetox

    svg solves that nicely

  27. Zash

    So why not have the ability tp publish a higher resolution along with the mandated 96x96 png or whatever

  28. lovetox

    you have this ability already Zash

  29. lovetox

    its just that other formats are not allowed than png

  30. lovetox

    for me the optimal case is

  31. Zash

    Wasn't it just argued that you could only have one item?

  32. lovetox

    user selects a svg, i publish a png in 100x100 or something, and add the svg in a second avatar info, so clients that support svg can use that

  33. lovetox

    where Zash?

  34. lovetox

    The XEP says the <data> node is only for PNG

  35. Zash

    That. That's silly.

  36. lovetox

    i know

  37. lovetox

    and mostly ignored anyway

  38. Zash

    The part MattJ quoted

  39. Zash

    So let's update it to be sane?

  40. lovetox

    i remeber a time when C only published in webp

  41. lovetox

    yes the part that MattJ quoted, says other "content-types"

  42. MattJ

    The way we usually handle this is "You must publish X, you may optionally publish other things"

  43. lovetox

    you can post image/png in 100 resolutions if you want to pep

  44. lovetox

    but not another content type

  45. Zash

    What's the point of a info/@type attribute if the only option is png?

  46. MattJ

    I'd be happy with even a SHOULD support PNG, it's tricky hard-coding something here that may evolve over time (when the rest of the documented protocol would hold up fine)

  47. Zash

    MattJ, yes, that

  48. Zash

    Like with hash algos

  49. lovetox

    but it already has a MUST

  50. lovetox

    > and one of the formats MUST be "image/png" to ensure interoperability

  51. lovetox

    can we not just remove the word "only"

  52. lovetox

    its not normativ language

  53. lovetox

    so i guess the creator didnt think this is important anyway

  54. lovetox

    we just remove that part "and only for the "image/png" content-type"

  55. lovetox

    from 4.1

  56. MattJ

    Sounds good to me

  57. Link Mauve

    โ€œ12:35:32 flow> serious question: why would you want to have your avatar in multiple formats? shouldn't png just always be fine?โ€, SVG is much smaller for vector data, and can work at arbitrarily high resolutions.

  58. Link Mauve

    โ€œ12:43:45 Daniel> heifโ€, all desktop clients will soon support it with AV1 inside (AVIF), when the user has libavif installed. :)

  59. Holger

    Alex, I did it, >24h before the period ended!!

  60. Holger

    Alex, many thanks for the reminder ๐Ÿ™‚

  61. Alex


  62. Holger

    !XSF_Martin, oh we're applying together. So you gotta change your nick once your application is accepted.

  63. Holger


  64. jonasโ€™

    Link Mauve, donโ€™t forget your application :)

  65. citizenzibb

    Have any xmpp based tech companies ever donated back to xmpp?

  66. citizenzibb

    I.e. WhatsApp kik etc.