singpolyma: you mentioned somewhere that you support groups in bookmarks (similar to how roster item groups work). I assume the element is just called group. But what's the namespace?
rubihas left
rubihas joined
Mario Sabatinohas joined
tbm16has left
jcbrandhas left
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
tbm16has joined
rubihas left
jcbrandhas joined
rubihas joined
Tobihas joined
Tobiashas joined
rubihas left
bhavyhas left
bhavyhas joined
tbm16has left
tbm16has joined
wurstsalathas joined
rubihas joined
tbm16has left
karoshihas joined
tbm16has joined
mdoschhas left
mdoschhas joined
LNJhas joined
tbm16has left
tbm16has joined
tbm16has left
praveenhas joined
tbm16has joined
goffihas left
SteveFhas joined
L29Ahhas left
tbm16has left
TheCoffeMakerhas left
TheCoffeMakerhas joined
Andrzejhas joined
tbm16has joined
L29Ahhas joined
Maranda[x]has left
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
Vaulorhas left
Vaulorhas joined
no_1729has joined
tbm16has left
tbm16has joined
karoshihas left
Skull Fuckerhas left
no_1729has left
asterixhas left
Maranda[x]has joined
asterixhas joined
karoshihas joined
SteveFhas left
tbm16has left
xeckshas left
uhoreghas left
Half-Shothas left
Matthewhas left
homebeachhas left
Half-Shothas joined
Matthewhas joined
homebeachhas joined
uhoreghas joined
tbm16has joined
xeckshas joined
asterixhas left
asterixhas joined
praveenhas left
pablohas joined
tbm16has left
tbm16has joined
Tobiashas left
uhoreghas left
Half-Shothas left
Matthewhas left
homebeachhas left
Half-Shothas joined
Matthewhas joined
homebeachhas joined
uhoreghas joined
Tobiashas joined
Tobiashas left
Tobiashas joined
neoxhas joined
Tobiashas left
Tobiashas joined
Tobiashas left
Tobiashas joined
miruxhas left
miruxhas joined
tbm16has left
Tobiashas left
Tobiashas joined
tbm16has joined
pablohas left
Tobiashas left
Tobiashas joined
projjalmhas joined
Tobiashas left
Tobiashas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
tbm16has left
tbm16has joined
Vaulorhas left
Vaulorhas joined
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
beanhas joined
tbm16has left
TheCoffeMakerhas left
uhoreghas left
Half-Shothas left
Matthewhas left
homebeachhas left
Half-Shothas joined
Matthewhas joined
homebeachhas joined
uhoreghas joined
projjalmhas left
projjalmhas joined
antranigvhas left
TheCoffeMakerhas joined
tbm16has joined
Maranda[x]has left
intosihas left
intosihas joined
Trunghas left
Trunghas joined
TheCoffeMakerhas left
TheCoffeMakerhas joined
*IM*has left
xengineeringhas left
stphas joined
*IM*has joined
xengineeringhas joined
tbm16has left
tbm16has joined
Maxencehas left
Maxencehas joined
Andrzejhas left
praveenhas joined
papatutuwawahas joined
Martinhas joined
Vaulorhas left
karoshihas left
Vaulorhas joined
Daniel
jcbrand, I think something isn’t right with the tos and froms in the 425 examples
Daniel
i think the intent is that the room fakes a retract coming from the person who originally send the bad message?
atomicwatchhas left
papatutuwawahas left
papatutuwawahas joined
atomicwatchhas joined
archas left
Dele Olajidehas joined
intosihas left
asterixhas left
asterixhas joined
intosihas joined
pep.
Yeah that could be coming from the participant. Also, as someone made me realize, the room doesn't exactly need to get involved here. Optionally to remove the message from the archive, but otherwise clients can check that a user has the proper affiliation for this.
pep.
Though.. I guess that wouldn't go well with fine grained permissions (hats etc.)
atomicwatchhas left
Andrzejhas joined
atomicwatchhas joined
tbm16has left
Rebeldhas left
adiaholichas left
asterixhas left
asterixhas joined
konstantinoshas joined
adiaholichas joined
TheCoffeMakerhas left
tbm16has joined
Daniel
I think it's better if the room does that. Otherwise you have to implement two verification methods in the client. And developers tend to fuck up just one
TheCoffeMakerhas joined
antranigvhas joined
lbocquethas left
lbocquethas joined
pep.
Well you don't trust (client) developers but you trust (server) developers, which is it :p
Skull Fuckerhas joined
Skull Fuckerhas left
Skull Fuckerhas joined
uhoreghas left
Half-Shothas left
Matthewhas left
homebeachhas left
Half-Shothas joined
Matthewhas joined
homebeachhas joined
uhoreghas joined
Skull Fuckerhas left
Skull Fuckerhas joined
Skull Fuckerhas left
Skull Fuckerhas joined
Skull Fuckerhas left
Skull Fuckerhas joined
tbm16has left
tbm16has joined
stphas left
atomicwatchhas left
bhavyhas left
bhavyhas joined
Ingolfhas left
Ingolfhas joined
Maranda[x]has joined
no_1729has joined
tbm16has left
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
pep.
I get that it's not exactly trust, fwiw, this was a bit of a pun. But I'm not sure I understand why "two" checks in the client (that would have also been implemented on the server anyway?)
tbm16has joined
atomicwatchhas joined
atomicwatchhas left
projjalmhas left
projjalmhas joined
lskdjfhas left
lskdjfhas joined
Fishbowlerhas left
Fishbowlerhas joined
praveenhas left
goffihas joined
atomicwatchhas joined
miruxhas left
no_1729has left
stphas joined
miruxhas joined
tbm16has left
tbm16has joined
atomicwatchhas left
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
jcbrand
> i think the intent is that the room fakes a retract coming from the person who originally send the bad message?
Why would it do that? The retraction is from a moderator.
Maranda[x]has left
atomicwatchhas joined
atomicwatchhas left
jcbrand
The MUC service determines whether a retraction by a 3rd party (i.e. moderator) is allowed
Daniel
to be compatible with retractions?
wurstsalathas left
wurstsalathas joined
Daniel
i’m not saying we should be compatible with retractions. but i thought that was the goal
jcbrand
Yeah I think it's a worthy goal, but somehow I think it's misleading to pretend that the author retracted their own message
Daniel
and you'd still know who moderated it because of the 'by'
jcbrand
true
jcbrand
yeah I guess it's better how you suggest due to compatibility concerns
Daniel
yes i'm on the fence if we should make it compatible with clients that only support retractions
I implemented both together and kinda always saw them as related
Daniel
> I think it's misleading to pretend that the author retracted their own message ✏
tbm16has left
jcbrand
> I think it's misleading to pretend that the author retracted their own message
Yes and also, the message is really from the room, not from the author
gooyahas joined
Daniel
then you can’t be compatible with retractions
jcbrand
One could argue that if a client only supports XEP-0424, it doesn't support XEP-0425
tbm16has joined
jcbrand
I like the idea of allowing them to somehow still retract messages without knowing about XEP-0425, but not necessarily at the expense of semantics
MSavoritias (fae,ve)
Yeah. Also could this be abused?
jcbrand
Normal users can't send stanzas on behalf of other users
MSavoritias (fae,ve)
If we have to fake from who it comes from?
jcbrand
So not really, as long as the client checks the sender
jcbrand
Unless you don't trust the MUC service at all, but then why are you using it?
pep.
Yeah the MUC is supposed to check that you're who you say you are in a message so no.✎
pep.
Yeah the MUC is supposed to check that you're who you say you are in a payload so no. ✏
stphas left
MSavoritias (fae,ve)
Ok
jcbrand
Daniel: I'm a bit on the fence. I can see someone making the argument: "The `from` is from the sender because it's their original message that's retracted and the `<moderated>` element specifies who did it". But then again, clients that don't check the moderator element might then wrongly report that the user retracted their own message
Daniel
yes I don’t think they necessarily need to be compatible
jcbrand
The way I had it before, with the `moderated` outside of the `retracted` element had the advantage that you could put other elements besides `retracted` inside it, like `correction` (or whatever it's called). I guess you could put the `moderated` inside the `correction`, but I think I prefer the old way. I swopped them out to get compatibility with XEP-0424, but if we don't have compatibility anyway due to the `from`, then I'm not sure the new way is better.✎
jcbrand
The way I had it before, with the `moderated` outside of the `retracted` element had the advantage that you could put other elements instead of `retracted` inside it, like `correction` (or whatever it's called). I guess you could put the `moderated` inside the `correction`, but I think I prefer the old way. I swopped them out to get compatibility with XEP-0424, but if we don't have compatibility anyway due to the `from`, then I'm not sure the new way is better. ✏
jcbrand
I guess with this way, it might be easier to add support for XEP-0425 if you already support XEP-0424
tbm16has left
jcbrand
Since I'm a web dev who doesn't use an XML parser, I think I have a bit of a blind spot as to how other client devs do things.
adiaholichas left
tbm16has joined
adiaholichas joined
Daniel
a client that has support for retractions can easily add support for moderation even if the syntax and verfication (check it's coming from bare) is slightly different
Daniel
the hard part isn’t the xml parsing
xeckshas left
xeckshas joined
Daniel
one could maybe even argue that a client might want to support retractions but not moderation
jcbrand
yes
jcbrand
Or that a client that supports retractions and then also unwittingly supports moderation is dangerous
jcbrand
I still think there's a general moderation use-case, that goes beyond retractions also
jcbrand
But people didn't like that I alluded to it without providing details
petrescatraianhas left
Maranda[x]has joined
kurisuhas left
kurisuhas joined
TheCoffeMakerhas left
TheCoffeMakerhas joined
atomicwatchhas joined
atomicwatchhas left
lbocquethas left
lbocquethas joined
L29Ahhas left
L29Ahhas joined
praveenhas joined
Dele Olajidehas left
tbm16has left
tbm16has joined
atomicwatchhas joined
atomicwatchhas left
Axelhas joined
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
Tim Rhas joined
Axelhas left
tbm16has left
atomicwatchhas joined
atomicwatchhas left
nicocohas joined
tbm16has joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
Skull Fuckerhas left
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
tbm16has left
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
tbm16has joined
tbm16has left
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
Tim Rhas left
goffihas left
goffihas joined
tbm16has joined
atomicwatchhas joined
atomicwatchhas left
petrescatraianhas joined
Tobiashas left
Tobihas left
Tobihas joined
Tobiashas joined
sonnyhas left
tbm16has left
sonnyhas joined
tbm16has joined
papatutuwawahas left
atomicwatchhas joined
atomicwatchhas left
tbm16has left
tbm16has joined
miruxhas left
miruxhas joined
govanifyhas left
intosihas left
intosihas joined
papatutuwawahas joined
pep.
wurstsalat, is there a short description of what's supposed to go in what category now?
Daniel: group, same namespace as in roster, put inside the bookmarks2 extensions area
TheCoffeMakerhas left
Daniel
singpolyma: OK thanks.
tbm16has joined
TheCoffeMakerhas joined
larmahas left
larmahas joined
projjalmhas left
atomicwatchhas joined
Ukrhas joined
atomicwatchhas left
archas joined
projjalmhas joined
no_1729has joined
larmahas left
Axelhas joined
larmahas joined
Axelhas left
chipmnkhas left
chipmnkhas joined
uhoreghas left
Half-Shothas left
Matthewhas left
homebeachhas left
Half-Shothas joined
Matthewhas joined
homebeachhas joined
uhoreghas joined
atomicwatchhas joined
atomicwatchhas left
larmahas left
larmahas joined
singpolymahas left
singpolymahas joined
tbm16has left
TheCoffeMakerhas left
no_1729has left
TheCoffeMakerhas joined
tbm16has joined
adiaholichas left
Tim Rhas joined
adiaholichas joined
atomicwatchhas joined
atomicwatchhas left
goffihas left
goffihas joined
atomicwatchhas joined
atomicwatchhas left
no_1729has joined
Tim Rhas left
Yagizahas joined
atomicwatchhas joined
Ukrhas left
no_1729has left
tbm16has left
arcxihas left
arcxihas joined
TheCoffeMakerhas left
Ingolfhas left
TheCoffeMakerhas joined
Axelhas joined
singpolymahas left
Axelhas left
Martinhas left
singpolymahas joined
goffihas left
Martinhas joined
goffihas joined
goffihas left
goffihas joined
goffihas left
goffihas joined
goffihas left
goffihas joined
goffihas left
goffihas joined
no_1729has joined
Axelhas joined
Axelhas left
papatutuwawahas left
Maranda[x]has left
adiaholichas left
kinetikhas left
kinetikhas joined
praveenhas left
adiaholichas joined
antranigvhas left
wladmishas left
wladmishas joined
antranigvhas joined
wurstsalat
pep.: There isn't yet. Shouldn't be too hard though, since you can apply more that one category
antranigvhas left
antranigvhas joined
antranigvhas left
singpolymahas left
TheCoffeMakerhas left
archas left
konstantinoshas left
TheCoffeMakerhas joined
intosihas left
intosihas joined
singpolymahas joined
wurstsalat
(and there are examples of tools)
archas joined
stphas joined
pep.
Ah? That section is empty for me
goffihas left
wurstsalat
you probably selected a specific platform
pep.
oh, good call
MattJ
If it's not too hard, maybe add some kind of "X items hidden by filters [Clear filters]"
👍️ 1
Ingolfhas joined
wurstsalat
good idea
Tim Rhas joined
intosihas left
intosihas joined
TheCoffeMakerhas left
pep.
I'm bringing a question re 377 here, I couldn't find a difference between spam and abuse. Any clue? I also suspect they'd be different from one community to the other..
TheCoffeMakerhas joined
goffihas joined
Daniel
Spam =mass messages selling you stuff. Abuse =personal. Insults etc
Daniel
Maybe
Daniel
From an operator perspective it's interesting because you can feed 'spam' into your other spam detection heuristics and abuse probably will require some sort of manual intervention
pep.
Personally, they all fall into abuse. One thing I'd be tempted to say for spam is the repeated characteristic. But I've also often heard the word abuse used for this
pep.
hmm
Maranda[x]has joined
moparisthebest
I think spam is always abuse, but abuse isn't always spam
Did you want the message? Did they send it to lots of recipients (like, in MUC)? Yes to both = spam!
atomicwatchhas left
Zash
Yes to first, no to second → abuse, maybe.
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
pablohas joined
Axelhas joined
Daniel
To me Spam is mostly automated. Last night wasn't automated
Axelhas left
Zash
No true spam isn't automated :)
Daniel
Just highly processed
atomicwatchhas joined
atomicwatchhas left
pep.
I can see this isn't very clear. Unsolicited can me many things as well. Most of my mailbox is unsolicited mail
pep.
And that's after I've sorted spam out
pep.
I wonder if it would be possible for a server/community not to include one or the other term from 377 in clients :/
pep.
Without forking said clients
Rebeldhas joined
atomicwatchhas joined
papatutuwawahas joined
goffihas left
goffihas joined
pablohas left
no_1729has left
singpolymahas left
singpolymahas joined
goffihas left
goffihas joined
konstantinoshas joined
uhoreghas left
Half-Shothas left
Matthewhas left
homebeachhas left
Half-Shothas joined
Matthewhas joined
homebeachhas joined
uhoreghas joined
stphas left
singpolyma
Do we still have a good reason to disallow editing older messages? While updating my code to support moderation last night I'm pretty sure I also allow retraction and edit of any message now
no_1729has joined
catchyhas left
catchyhas joined
singpolyma
(since moderation needed that)
Daniel
Fwiw Conversations 3 will allow you to edit any message
Daniel
So no I don't think so
singpolyma
Sounds like a vote for me to allow it now then if I will after I rebase on c3 anyway ;)
Daniel
The big difference to me is that C3 will show full history of edits
singpolyma
That will be nice
Daniel
Which I think gets rid of some of the side effects of allowing to edit a message from five years ago
Zash
Excellent!
Zash
IIRC that's a recommendation in the XEP too, to show history of edits.
Skull Fuckerhas joined
Skull Fuckerhas left
pep.
I also prefer A(ny)MC
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
Daniel
Yes. But tell that early twenties me to design the database properly
pep.
:)
stphas joined
Skull Fuckerhas joined
Skull Fuckerhas left
Skull Fuckerhas joined
uhoreghas left
Half-Shothas left
Matthewhas left
homebeachhas left
Half-Shothas joined
Matthewhas joined
homebeachhas joined
uhoreghas joined
Vaulorhas left
Vaulorhas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
resolihas left
qyhas left
qyhas joined
SteveFhas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
Ingolfhas left
Ingolfhas joined
Maxencehas left
Maxencehas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
TheCoffeMakerhas left
goffihas left
goffihas joined
TheCoffeMakerhas joined
konstantinoshas left
TheCoffeMakerhas left
TheCoffeMakerhas joined
Maranda[x]has left
Maranda[x]has joined
deuillhas joined
Vaulorhas left
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
TheCoffeMakerhas left
singpolymahas left
SteveFhas left
atomicwatchhas left
snowhas joined
TheCoffeMakerhas joined
Vaulorhas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
pep.
wurstsalat, how about adding GET query params support to be able to share links from that doap page
singpolymahas joined
TheCoffeMakerhas left
deuillhas left
TheCoffeMakerhas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
TheCoffeMakerhas left
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
goffihas left
goffihas joined
TheCoffeMakerhas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
chipmnkhas left
chipmnkhas joined
edhelas
In MUC, clients cannot inject <status/> I can imagine ?
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
edhelas
> Yes. But tell that early twenties me to design the database properly
Movim had this flaw as well, now I keep the whole history and replace the messages once generating the bubble (might be able to show the history actually as well) ↺
singpolymahas left
singpolymahas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
TheCoffeMakerhas left
edhelas
On a totally different topic, would it be possible for servers to serve avatars over HTTP ?
edhelas
It's already possible in the XEP, and we have HTTP features already such as for HTTP upload.
edhelas
This could greatly help to reduce the congestion in XML streams
pep.
By moving off to HTTP. Are you also going to seel your unborn child?
edhelas
Wat
pep.
Is this actually an issue you have?
pep.
sell*
edhelas
Well, it's more an improvement
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
singpolyma
edhelas: you can of course, but there are privacy concerns since you leak IP to with over http
resolihas joined
edhelas
When connecting to big chatrooms, I could easily fire parallel Curl download and not get each avatar in base64
singpolyma
Can you do both? I think you can, then clients can choose
edhelas
singpolyma yes, the Avatar XEP can do that :)
qwemnbhas joined
Zash
what we could do is replace XEP-0153 with something like blurhash, like a 4x4 png
edhelas
Zash as well :)
Zash
IIRC larma or someone pointed out that a tiny PNG bit without header and stuff would be more efficient than blurhash
singpolyma
We're using blurhash already for media thumbnails
singpolyma
(we, Cheogram and Cheogram Android)
zonsopkomsthas left
zonsopkomsthas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
edhelas
singpolyma ther's a XEP for that ?
singpolyma
edhelas: just using sims
singpolyma
<thumbnail with a data uri
qwemnbhas left
Axelhas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
flashcorehas left
flashcorehas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
resolihas left
Maxencehas left
Maxencehas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
papatutuwawahas left
archas left
archas joined
millesimushas left
Kevhas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
Kevhas left
wurstsalat
> wurstsalat, how about adding GET query params support to be able to share links from that doap page
Using hugo?
papatutuwawahas joined
Axelhas left
millesimushas joined
konstantinoshas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
mdoschhas left
mdoschhas joined
atomicwatchhas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
Zash
javascript :(
TheCoffeMakerhas joined
TheCoffeMakerhas left
pep.
Well there's an obvious graceful fallback which is you can only share the page and not the query
TheCoffeMakerhas joined
Zash
You can do a lot with CSS actually, but probably not all of the settings
Zash
#client #server etc could work tho
archas left
archas joined
singpolymahas left
singpolymahas joined
Skull Fuckerhas left
Skull Fuckerhas joined
Skull Fuckerhas left
snowhas left
Skull Fuckerhas joined
antranigvhas joined
antranigvhas left
catchyhas left
catchyhas joined
govanifyhas left
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
govanifyhas joined
krithas left
krithas joined
krithas left
krithas joined
krithas left
antranigvhas joined
krithas joined
Vaulorhas left
Vaulorhas joined
TheCoffeMakerhas left
antranigvhas left
antranigvhas joined
antranigvhas left
pep.
It seems like DOAP,s <xmpp:note/> doesn't accept structured markup? (does it have to be explicitely defined?) Where do people describe their support for monsters like 0045 or 0060?
Martinhas left
massiveboxhas left
Zash
plain text
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
snowhas joined
Andrzejhas left
stphas left
massiveboxhas joined
TheCoffeMakerhas joined
Ingolfhas left
Martinhas joined
miruxhas left
miruxhas joined
pablohas joined
tbm16has joined
TheCoffeMakerhas left
Yagizahas left
Ingolfhas joined
pablohas left
TheCoffeMakerhas joined
antranigvhas joined
stphas joined
LNJhas left
TheCoffeMakerhas left
jcbrandhas left
jcbrandhas joined
LNJhas joined
mihohas joined
stphas left
antranigvhas left
Dele Olajidehas joined
mihohas left
TheCoffeMakerhas joined
TheCoffeMakerhas left
qyhas left
TheCoffeMakerhas joined
qyhas joined
beanhas left
pablohas joined
pablohas left
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
MSavoritias (fae,ve)has left
Maranda[x]has left
Patigahas left
antranigvhas joined
mdoschhas left
mdoschhas joined
antranigvhas left
stphas joined
resolihas joined
uhoreghas left
Half-Shothas left
Matthewhas left
homebeachhas left
Half-Shothas joined
Matthewhas joined
homebeachhas joined
uhoreghas joined
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
resolihas left
antranigvhas joined
resolihas joined
antranigvhas left
intosihas left
intosihas joined
antranigvhas joined
Trunghas left
antranigvhas left
antranigvhas joined
resolihas left
Trunghas joined
no_1729has left
TheCoffeMakerhas left
Tim Rhas left
TheCoffeMakerhas joined
TheCoffeMakerhas left
millesimushas left
millesimushas joined
TheCoffeMakerhas joined
Maranda[x]has joined
konstantinoshas left
rubihas left
miruxhas left
miruxhas joined
goffihas left
miruxhas left
LNJhas left
TheCoffeMakerhas left
miruxhas joined
TheCoffeMakerhas joined
goffihas joined
massiveboxhas left
rubihas joined
miruxhas left
massiveboxhas joined
intosihas left
intosihas joined
miruxhas joined
Dele Olajidehas left
miruxhas left
no_1729has joined
snowhas left
miruxhas joined
Maranda[x]has left
Maranda[x]has joined
TheCoffeMakerhas left
edhelas
Is CDATA valid in XMPP ?
Menelhas left
TheCoffeMakerhas joined
Menelhas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
singpolyma
Should be? It's just syntactic
edhelas
Ok
edhelas
Because we agree that <body>> quoted message</body> is not valid ?
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
singpolyma
Correct
singpolyma
So cdata or entity
singpolyma
They're equivalent
edhelas
Perfect 👍
pep.
> that is, not &gt; :P
singpolyma
Right
Alexhas left
Axel Reimerhas left
nuronhas left
nuronhas joined
marc0shas left
marc0shas joined
neoxhas left
goffihas left
catchyhas left
TheCoffeMakerhas left
TheCoffeMakerhas joined
larma
> > that is, not &gt;
Why would that not be valid?
Mario Sabatinohas left
miruxhas left
pep.
I mean &gt; isn't ">"
pep.
That's what movim was sending before the last commit, displaying > everywhere in fallback messages instead of >
larma
Ah.
asterixhas left
antranigvhas left
antranigvhas joined
larma
I just wanted to mention that only & and < are not allowed in XML character data, but > is. > though must actually be escaped as > when in CDATA✎
antranigvhas left
larma
I just wanted to mention that only & and < are not allowed in XML character data, but > is. > though must actually be escaped as > when in CDATA if it appears after ]] ✏
asterixhas joined
Zash
Pretty sure many XML parsers are totally fine with `<a>></a>`