XSF Discussion - 2021-09-04

is it normal that to/from fields are omitted in some examples? https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0077.html#usecases-register

Who knows

i don't know, is it a policy to make examples shorter?

Not that I know of.

Examples are booby trapped to see who actually reads the xep vs just copying examples

moparisthebest, best explanation so far ;)

southerntofu: 'from' shouldn't be set by clients, so when you see it on a client->server example, it's only there for clarity to the reader (maybe if there are multiple clients represented in the examples)

And 'to' isn't set on certain kinds of stanzas, which is why that will be missing sometimes

MattJ, i copied without thinking/reading something similar to https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0077.html#example-4 and was bit by missing the "to" field :)

or is it expected NOT to have a "to" field? sounds weird

(so i'm in the second category mopar described ;))

Debate about whether '77 should have a 'to' was a controversial topic, I don't know if it was ever satisfactorily resolved

if there's no "to", what happens if i start two registrations in parallel and supply requested information afterwards? sounds ambiguous

IQ stanzas are correlated by id

https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2010-June/023547.html

ah yes, that's exactly the issue, thanks

is there a working group or chan/wiki/issue dedicated to tracking such useful feedback on unclear XEPs?

Today I saw this: https://osoc.be/ Maybe that becomes interesting to us in the future. cc: ralphm MattJ arc dwd

emus: nice, I haven't heard of that yet

I was watching some videos in the OpenStreetMap channel and saw it

Haven't seen this posted here before https://www.jsxc.org/blog/2021/08/31/A-group-call-proposal.html

Great approach. This is where my taxes should go