XSF Discussion - 2023-06-29

cal0pteryx, out of curiosity, do you know how members.json would handle a board member who is not an XSF member?

AFAICT there is no way to technically specify that

MattJ: I'm happy to check as soon as I get home in the evening

Sure, no rush. We don't have such a situation currently, and haven't for a number of years :)

I suspect the easiest option would be to add a new "nonmembers" group or something

<conflict-resolution xmlns="urn:xmpp:pubsub:conflict:0" behaviour="overwrite" />

What could be the other behaviour ?

reject

And we use the UK "behaviour" and not US "behavior" :p ?

Current behaviour is to reject. ✏

I think we should use US, so consider it a typo :)

Might save a few bytes :p

I'm fine with UK, we already have plenty of Shakespeare references isn't it ?

Generally most programming languages stick to US English, and that's what I tend to naturally use while coding

I think the consistency is worth it

there is explicit wording in some XEP that XEPs are supposed to stick to en_US

Concistency is nice

Erlang has 'behaviour's!!

But of course Erlang tries hard to be different just for the sake of it. Like the Brits.

Erlang is always a special snowflake ❄

Time for an Erlxit then.

Erlang exit()s all day long.

ITYM Elixit

> MattJ: > Generally most programming languages stick to US English, and that's what I tend to naturally use while coding Sometimes I like colour over color but I do choose color in programming most of the time

> Holger a écrit : > But of course Erlang tries hard to be different just for the sake of it. Like the Brits. They're Swedish.

I can _taste_ the level of nerdiness in this room.

I love the Shakespeare references. But I'm also a biased Brit.

reminds me that I need to dig out the twitter thread with shakespearan insults someone shared the other day

jonas’ do you think it could be interesting to add tags on MUC for search.jabber.network ?

I'm thinking of doing something similar in Pubsub nodes as well, helps with indexing and discovering

Can be as simple as having #hashtags in the description, or something more "standard" in the XMPP way <tag xmlns="somethin"/>

What happens if two clients try to bind to the same resource?

Depends on server policy.

Usually the older is kicked.

kurisu: the recommended approach is to kill the older session because it's assumed that it is the same client after a network downtime

And if you experience this as a client you should probably change resources

Experience being kicked due to resource conflict

Yeah, that's important as well. Sometimes people clone the config 1:1 to another device, or restore from backup, and then you have two equal resources

kurisu, https://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6120.html#rfc.section.7.7.2.2 has words ✏

It says kicking the old is discouraged because of such loops...

Zash: the RFC is old

the situation is also different with 0198.

Ge0rG, read the text 🙂

But sure, xmpp-core-bis-again when?

What is old is new again.

yes

edhelas, interested, but in a standardised "not just scraped from description" way please

now if only we had a form type for list of random strings