Re: [Standards] Security issues with XHTML-IM (again)

Wed, 18 Oct 2017 21:43:22 +0100 Maxime Buquet wrote: > I don't want to shut all doors, but I have a hard time seeing what > benefit this will bring. I only see wasted time and effort, and years > of incompatibilities and tensions between clients. All of this to > bring more or

Re: [Standards] Security issues with XHTML-IM (again)

On 2017/10/18, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > On Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 10:57:19 CEST Sam Whited wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 07:06, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > > > (b) The ecosystem will fracture in islands of different, underspecified, > > > > > > plain-text markups put in . > > > > With

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

On 2017/10/18, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > On Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 20:09:28 CEST Florian Schmaus wrote: > > On 18.10.2017 19:58, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > > > On Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 18:12:54 CEST Florian Schmaus wrote: > > >> The situation BMH tries to improve is the following: I do have a

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

On Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 13:38:47 CEST Sam Whited wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017, at 12:40, Goffi wrote: > > If we base the debate on devs not really taking care of security (which > > was > > the initial issue with XHTML-IM) or path of less resistance, they will > > most > > probably just

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

On Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 20:09:28 CEST Florian Schmaus wrote: > On 18.10.2017 19:58, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > > On Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 18:12:54 CEST Florian Schmaus wrote: > >> The situation BMH tries to improve is the following: I do have a bunch > >> of data formatted using a markup

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

Le mercredi 18 octobre 2017, 20:38:47 CEST Sam Whited a écrit : > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017, at 12:40, Goffi wrote: > > If we base the debate on devs not really taking care of security (which > > was > > the initial issue with XHTML-IM) or path of less resistance, they will > > most > > probably just

Re: [Standards] IM Message Routing 2: Device Identity

Wed, 18 Oct 2017 16:43:54 +0100 Kevin Smith wrote: > It’s much easier to keep a global lookup table if you don’t have to > deal with conflicts because the identifiers are node-specific - > that’s where the gain in not needing the (effective) lock comes in > here. You

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017, at 12:40, Goffi wrote: > If we base the debate on devs not really taking care of security (which > was > the initial issue with XHTML-IM) or path of less resistance, they will > most > probably just send the raw Markdown to the list, were HTML can be > executed. It would

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

Le mercredi 18 octobre 2017, 19:56:23 CEST Florian Schmaus a écrit : > On 18.10.2017 19:40, Goffi wrote: > > If you believe that clients operated by human users send BMH then please > read the very first post of mine on this thread. I think a lot of > confusion comes from this assumption. > >

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

On 18.10.2017 19:58, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > On Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 18:12:54 CEST Florian Schmaus wrote: >> The situation BMH tries to improve is the following: I do have a bunch >> of data formatted using a markup language, say CommonMark, that I want >> to send over XMPP to an XMPP

Re: [Standards] Security issues with XHTML-IM (again)

On Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 10:57:19 CEST Sam Whited wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 07:06, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > > I am still not keen on obsoleting XHTML-IM before we have an actual > > alternative ready. I don’t think that this will achieve anything good. > > > Instead, I think that one

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

On 18.10.2017 19:48, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > On Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 18:21:33 CEST Florian Schmaus wrote: >> Again: The assumption is that there is a lot of markup'd data, >> especially CommonMark, out there. And the amount flowing through the >> XMPP network will increase over time. > > Do

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

On Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 18:12:54 CEST Florian Schmaus wrote: > The situation BMH tries to improve is the following: I do have a bunch > of data formatted using a markup language, say CommonMark, that I want > to send over XMPP to an XMPP client. Because there is no converter from >

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

On 18.10.2017 19:40, Goffi wrote: > Le mercredi 18 octobre 2017, 19:19:53 CEST Florian Schmaus a écrit : >> On 18.10.2017 18:47, Goffi wrote: >>> Again allowing a protoXEP like this would mean using it as a rich syntax >>> vectore, so the issue is relevant. >> >> No, it is totally irrelevant.

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

On Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 18:21:33 CEST Florian Schmaus wrote: > Again: The assumption is that there is a lot of markup'd data, > especially CommonMark, out there. And the amount flowing through the > XMPP network will increase over time. Do you have a source for that assumption? kind

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

Le mercredi 18 octobre 2017, 19:19:53 CEST Florian Schmaus a écrit : > On 18.10.2017 18:47, Goffi wrote: > > CommonMark is specified, but how can you garantee that the dev will use > > libraries compliant with CommonMark? > > No one can, but that applies to all approaches, even to text. It

Re: [Standards] Security issues with XHTML-IM (again)

Le mercredi 18 octobre 2017, 17:57:19 CEST Sam Whited a écrit : > [SNIP] Dave suggested that we start an (X)HTML (not IM) XEP for extensions asking it outside of IM, like microblogging, I think this is a good idea. Beside that even if I was opposed to deprecating XHTML-IM at first, if we can

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

Le mercredi 18 octobre 2017, 18:12:54 CEST Florian Schmaus a écrit : > On 18.10.2017 17:52, Goffi wrote: > > 1) as its name state it's a writting syntax and not a publishing one. > > There is not such thing as invalid Markdown (every text is valid > > Markdown), but the result will differ

[Standards] Council Minutes 2017–10–18

# 2017-10-18 Council minutes Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2017-10-18/#14:56:10 ## Roll Call - Tobias (chairing) - Dave Cridland (on 4G) - Sam Whited - Daniel Gultsch - Emmanuel Gil Peyrot ## Minute Taker Ge0rG this time ## Vote on "XEP-0071: make security considations much clearer"

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Body Markup Hints

On 18.10.2017 17:52, Goffi wrote: > I fully agree with Jonas + what I've already said on Markdown (and nobody > disagreed on those points so far), that I'll repeat below for reference + > putting it in is even worse ( is for plain text, and markup > language will not be nice outside of client

Re: [Standards] Security issues with XHTML-IM (again)

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 07:06, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > I am still not keen on obsoleting XHTML-IM before we have an actual > alternative ready. I don’t think that this will achieve anything good. > Instead, I think that one of two things will happen: Someone suggested in the council meeting

Re: [Standards] IM Message Routing 2: Device Identity

Thanks again. On 11 Oct 2017, at 18:14, Georg Lukas wrote: > 1. Resource identifiers in the JID > > Those are unique, so a server must either kill the old session or refuse > the new session on conflict. IMO clients that create a randomized > resource string on account setup, or

Re: [Standards] [Council] 2017-09-27 XSF Council Minutes

A general question to those votes (with my black hat on): How is it ensured, that those votes come from authorized persons? I mean, I could fake a sender address and if this person doesn't protest I could influence the vote. Cheers, Klaus On 18.10.2017 17:00, Emmanuel Gil Peyrot wrote: > On

Re: [Standards] Content Types in messages vs Body Markup Hints

Hello Florian > On 14.10.2017 11:59, Peter Waher wrote: > > Hello > > > > A year and a half ago I proposed a XEP: "Content Types in Messages" [1], > > solving the issue of describing and annotating what type of content is > > sent in messages. At the time, many objected, since they did not see