XSF Discussion - 2020-09-24

https://runyourown.social

“How to run a small social network site for your friends”

Does pubsub allow a node to be marked/tagged/namespaced to say "here that's the kind of content you'll find and how you're supposed to handle it", or is it just a non-namespaced name?

pubsub#type ? :/

(node configuration)

unrelated, is it possible to have xmpp: NSs that actually point to the document?

0. Welcome + Agenda

!

Hi!

I just sent the agenda, but it seems stuck somewhere.

0) Welcome 1) Minute taker 2) txxmpp client on client list? 3) Elections 4) AOB 5) Date of Next 6) Close

MattJ, Guus, Seve?

Hey

o/

1. Minute taker

I'll do it

Thanks pep.

2. txxmpp client

From what I understand, this is a command line tool, rather than an interactive chat client.

Correct ✏

I don't particularly see a problem with adding this, if the description just notes this point.

Is this a matter for board?

I also don't see any issue with that

I don't think so

guus.der.kinderen, good question, probably not

We don't show descriptions of clients on the site, by the way

Even better :)

I mean on the page linked

Guus well, it is an open PR I would like to close and I believe applying my only opinion is not fair. Because I would not have accepted the PR at this moment, because I personally feel it does not fit there.

I'm with you on that Seve,

Seve, what do you think fits there then?

The page linked is source code

there's no documentation.

I'd stick it with 'libraries'rather then 'clients' to not confuse 99% of the people on our website looking at that list

Is all this stuff referenced somewhere in our criteria? (do we have any public criteria?)

but to be honest, I don't care much either way

No, we do not.

although...

Well then it probably fits into no criteria

there's a bit of documentation in the stuff that processes the data files, I think.

anyway, let's not make a big deal out of this

sure

Happy to see webteam move forward on this how they see fit.

+1

I'd stick it with libraries, but no-one made me king of anything.

Alright then

We should really get rid of these lists someday..

Anyway..

To replace it with something else?

nothing

Not on xmpp.org at least

Well, ok. That might be an interesting topic some other time, venue.

Yep

3. Elections

As you've seen Alex has put out the call for our upcoming Board and Council elections.

Submission deadline is November 8.

Please consider who you'd like to ping to serve on Board and/or if you want to stand (again) yourself.

I don't have anything further on this myself.

4. AOB

Any OB?

None here 🙂

None from me

neither

maybe we can review some feedback/backburner topics next meeting?

None here

in an effort to clean up the plate a bit

Yeah, I already did a bit of clean up, but there's more that may be so obsolete that it can be removed.

If you all could have a look at Trello, that'd be great. I'll add an agenda item for this

6. Date of Next

+1W

7. Close

Thanks all!

Thanks!

Cheers

Super 🙂

Thanks

jonas’, vanitasvitae, https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0277.html#location there's already some escaping in URIs being done here btw

pep., "Outside of native XMPP systems"

of course you have to escape urls if you want them to be used by other applications

Is that an issue?

if you have not allowed chars in your uri you have to escape them

it does not matter if it happens in the context of xmpp or whatever

otherwise its not a valid uri

i dont see how this has anything to do with the question if you are allowed to put an escaped uri into a node attribute

I don't think we're talking about the same thing

are we

I'm talking about this: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/983 and council's comments

Unrelated, I regret 0277 doesn't specify pubsub#type to be set to 'urn:xmpp:microblog:0' when not in PEP.. Any reason why? miss?

“A person's microblog SHOULD be located at a personal eventing (PEP) node named "urn:xmpp:microblog:0" but MAY be located at a generic publish-subscribe node that is not attached to a user's IM account.”

Would it make sense to change it now? :/

TIL microblog is not even Draft

pep., sounds sensible to recommend that pubsub#type is set

or even require that. but I don't want to get into "recommend it" vs "require it" discussion right now ✏

I'd also require it, but I think I'm not gonna like what that implies to change in the document

point is, recommending something that is sensible makes always sense, no matter the XEP state

what does it imply? and what do you not like?

Well, recommending it would be better than rn, but still quite useless because it's not something I can use to detect 277 nodes in bare PubSub

So I'd rather require it.

Now..

Requiring it certainly means breaking change

make a PR and put it on council's plate :)

heh

Do we have stats of what client is implementing microblog? Movim, Sàt, anybody else? What about libraries?

Link Mauve, any idea? (with the DOAP stuff you've been playing)

I'd also recommend using atom:generator in 277 maybe

Even though just using pubsub#type is already a step up

https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/986 !

Hm, searching for `pubsub#type` yields mostly examples and a changelog entry about clarifying the field.

Yeah I've seen that :/

"clarifying", always the same word. Though tbh it's still as loose

"payload type" doesn't mean much

https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0060.html#registrar-formtypes-config has the longest description I could find

> The type of node data, usually specified by the namespace of the payload (if any)

Ok, so that looks appropriate

There are two example that have "http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" as value, but that's quite handwavy to me tbh

"Yeah it's atom, do whatever you want however you want"

Which is not exactly what 0277 is

And even if it were "just atom on pubsub", there's no possibility of evolution when done this way (when pubsub#type is set to Atom)

Where would it make sense to add an "Integration with Data Forms" section in 0060? Similar to https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0137.html#usecase.xdata

I'm thinking somewhere in §12 or before or after

https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0060.html#impl

How do I link from a XEP to an anchor in another XEP?

Just a normal html link?

I mean, <link/> with a normal html url?

xep-1234.html#foo ?

On todays meeting: ralphm pep. guus.der.kinderen Seve Even you don't see your responsibility there (but I support Seve asking for opinion, because I also couldn't evaluate myself): You all would likely put txxmpp into the library list than client? Or do you not care to put it into the client list and one need to find out himself? In general I think not haveing a client list is very bad + I think XSF should try to maintain a list. Because here is the most knowledge on XMPP aggregated and that's where one would go first in my understanding and view.

For txxmpp specifically, I don't see why it wouldn't go into the client list. There is no requirement that this list must only include clients that provide a binary, or have documentation, or even match any definition of a "chat" application. There is simply no requirements.

I'd rather discuss a proposal that adds such a definition. In the meantime I think it perfectly fits the no-criteria requirements for the client list

As for the second point about having a client list, I disagree. I think xmpp.org is not the right place for this. Having a generic list of things is at best misleading

> I'd rather discuss a proposal that adds such a definition. In the meantime I think it perfectly fits the no-criteria requirements for the client list Yes okay, I would keep it just simple as it is, as long as its not completely out of space.

What do you mean "simple"?

We can't do that, we have to accept all clients that ask to be in the list otherwise we wouldn't be "neutral" :/

> As for the second point about having a client list, I disagree. I think xmpp.org is not the right place for this. Having a generic list of things is at best misleading I dont see where it is generic? I think not even haveing a list of this anymore is another step disconnecting from the actual applied community. And I think that is not good.

xmpp.org is about presenting the protocol. I would've thought it makes some sense to showcase a few implementations as examples. But it's probably mostly irrelevant to end users. They'll search app stores. (In theory. In practice their geek friends tell them to install client $x.)

> What do you mean "simple"? Just not put any further hurdles in making PRs to a list

Holger, not everybody does that unfortunately :/

pep.: Does what?

For a really long time people would create accounts on xmpp.jp because it's what xmpp.org presented first

Ah.

> We can't do that, we have to accept all clients that ask to be in the list otherwise we wouldn't be "neutral" :/ Yes, I mean all XMPP ✏

I dont see why XSF cannot present what people are actually doing the the protocol

emus, the issue with having is list is multiple. First we can't even get people to agree on criteria, so we have as little as possible. Some are tring to fight against having unmaintained implementations while some other want their implementation to be able to make it up the list so they're rather not be too specific.

That's a first point

Then presenting a list not having any idea who the target is and what they're looking for, how they ended up here. No description of clients, what kind of clients they are (I discovered today some think there should only be "chat" clients in there?), etc.

As a user I'd just be lost with so much choice and no directions

I don't want to end up here

Hmm, yes, but if there is no agreement so far its better having one list, all or no one, than have no list in my view. However, I know now what you mean with criteria, I thought about something different. ✏

maybe an idea would be to create another organization which defines own goals for the xmpp world

instead of trying to make the xsf into it

A lobby organization, charged with promotion of XMPP? Mmmmmm

Yeah, there you see ... I only see fights between those possible two organisations from the current situation

Holger, I'd rather showcase in XEPs with things like DOAP for example

pep.: Sorry whats DOAP again?

Of course you don't need a separate organization to make a web page with a list of clients presented in a nice format

A document in which implementations say what XEP they support etc.

Zash, yeah completly separate

own homepage, own logo

cf modernxmpp

for example

yes, thats also fine

and if enough client/server developers back this organisation

emus, https://lab.louiz.org/poezio/poezio/-/blob/main/data/doap.xml

then it basically becomes the law

we dont need the xsf to make a compliance xep

Huh?

lovetox, "the law"?

you mean "a possibility" rather? :)

bad term, but i mean the standard

the org that says whats good and bad

AIUI modernxmpp is meant to be more like extended implementation notes and guidelines for stuff other than the protocol itself

i mean thats what most of you want anyway or not :)?

lovetox, sure. With implementations still having a choice to follow it or not

point being you can have a group/org/webpage with a different focus, and let the XSF focus on herding XEs

--> I did not intend to say to loose the focus on the protocol ☝🙂 ✏

Zash, exactly, and i guess people want to make the XSF into it, because the XSF has some kind of official authority

my point was, if enough client/server devs back this new org, it has enough authority

... for what?

for example to push compliance regulations

you don't even need that, you just need a popular client

or to decide to *not* showcase unmaintained clients

just an idea, i dont care too much, just see people fighting over this XSF direction stuff for a long time

and i think people need to ask themself why they so badly need the XSF to do it instead of some other org

i would understand if the XSF had an agenda or direction it was pushing, but it seems XSF says we dont care, we are neutral we just publish XEPs

https://github.com/Ppjet6/xeps/commit/dcbb771034bff841fd4f8ad4fb68173f93e9c414 gonna submit something like this. Thoughts? before I push the PR button

then this is perfect, for another org to not jujst push XEPs :)

its not a competition then

The XSF does care. People really don't get that. #NeutralityIsALie.

Wanting to showcase all clients is as much a direction than wanting to showcase a few clients

lovetox, people want to have a separate org, but lack the resources to do it

MattJ maybe? ^ the commit above

pep.: Based on https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0122.html#usecases-datatypes I'm thinking it should have a prefix of some sort

pubsub:?

Or.. do we want this more generic?

> Start with a prefix registered with the XMPP Registrar [3] Is there any such thing?

Ah, https://xmpp.org/registrar/xdv-prefixes.html

0137 has a sipub: prefix

right

So I guess pubsub: would follow this

Where do I add that

I'm always confused with registrar things

"2005-08-26 Added sipub: prefix specified in XEP-0137. (psa)", in the XEP directly? Same as the datatype?

https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0137.html#registrar.xdata-validate "The XMPP Registrar includes 'sipub:' in its registry of Data Forms Validation Datatype Prefixes."

Does that mean this XEP defines it. I'm failing at english, or is it spec-language I don't understand

That's Editor procedural stuff that's done on Draft or so?

https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/988 here. With a few questions

> lovetox, people want to have a separate org, but lack the resources to do it

I don't see that there are actually resources in XSF either

Still, I personally would like to see fewer disconnect and not have another additional organisation ✏

The problem is that the XSF consistently fails at anything much further beyond protocol development

I think it's rather that there's no will to do more by a majority. Be it for the (expected?) lack of resources or anything else, so the few attempts often fail indeed

I think the ressources problem could be dealt with

emus, recruiting? 🙂

Thats not what I thought of. but is something we should think about in general, too. I thought more into the direction, as pep. mentioned that there is a majority not wanting this, so who wants to work against that. If there is general support and motivation that will bring volunteers, I personally think. ✏

Btw, Seve lets merge the txxmpp PR then?

oh wait, I think there is one build error