Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0387 (XMPP Compliance Suites 2017)

On 09.11.2017 02:07, Arc Riley wrote: > Since XEP-0114 is historical and its purpose predates SRV records, I'm > wondering why it was included in the suite for server compliance? Because it is still the de-facto standard how you plug in external components into your XMPP server. :) And what do

Re: [Standards] 2017-11-08 XSF Council Minutes

On Mittwoch, 8. November 2017 21:55:54 CET goffi wrote: > Le 2017-11-08 20:20, Jonas Wielicki a écrit : > > On Mittwoch, 8. November 2017 20:02:24 CET Goffi wrote: > >> I was in favor of making formatting characters mandatory in styling, > >> but if > >> there is markup and attribute, I think

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0387 (XMPP Compliance Suites 2017)

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017, at 19:07, Arc Riley wrote: > Since XEP-0114 is historical and its purpose predates SRV records, I'm > wondering why it was included in the suite for server compliance? As far as I can tell it is still widely used for transports, plugins, etc. so it seemed worth including. I'm

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0387 (XMPP Compliance Suites 2017)

Since XEP-0114 is historical and its purpose predates SRV records, I'm wondering why it was included in the suite for server compliance? On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Sam Whited wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 1, 2017, at 11:50, Dave Cridland wrote: > > On 1 November 2017 at

Re: [Standards] 2017-11-08 XSF Council Minutes

Le 2017-11-08 20:20, Jonas Wielicki a écrit : On Mittwoch, 8. November 2017 20:02:24 CET Goffi wrote: I was in favor of making formatting characters mandatory in styling, but if there is markup and attribute, I think it's not needed anymore. It is, for clients not supporting markup at all.

Re: [Standards] 2017-11-08 XSF Council Minutes

On Mittwoch, 8. November 2017 20:02:24 CET Goffi wrote: > I was in favor of making formatting characters mandatory in styling, but if > there is markup and attribute, I think it's not needed anymore. It is, for clients not supporting markup at all. kind regards, Jonas signature.asc

Re: [Standards] 2017-11-08 XSF Council Minutes

Le mercredi 8 novembre 2017, 17:56:26 CET Jonas Wielicki a écrit : > On Mittwoch, 8. November 2017 17:49:26 CET JC Brand wrote: > > jonasw asks that the previously rejected ProtoXEP "Body Markup Hints" be > > reconsidered as a means to bridge the above two ProtoXEPs. > > > >

Re: [Standards] 2017-11-08 XSF Council Minutes

Am 8. November 2017 17:56:26 MEZ schrieb Jonas Wielicki : >On Mittwoch, 8. November 2017 17:49:26 CET JC Brand wrote: >> jonasw asks that the previously rejected ProtoXEP "Body Markup Hints" >be >> reconsidered as a means to bridge the above two ProtoXEPs. >> >>

Re: [Standards] 2017-11-08 XSF Council Minutes

On Mittwoch, 8. November 2017 17:49:26 CET JC Brand wrote: > jonasw asks that the previously rejected ProtoXEP "Body Markup Hints" be > reconsidered as a means to bridge the above two ProtoXEPs. > > https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/bmh.html Sorry, to correct: This is not what I said (or at

[Standards] 2017-11-08 XSF Council Minutes

2017-11-08 XSF Council Minutes == Chat Logs: http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2017-11-08 Chair: * Emmanuel Gil Peyrot (Link Mauve) Present: * Sam Whited (SamWhited) * Dave Cridland (dwd) * Daniel Gultsch (daniel) * Tobias Markmann (Tobias) Minute taker: * JC Brand

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Styling

Le mercredi 8 novembre 2017, 11:18:51 CET Jonas Wielicki a écrit : > I think we also have to acknowledge that there are use-cases for much richer > text, for example within the Social Network and Blog Federation interest > groups (sorry if that name doesn’t quite fit). Those use-cases were covered

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Styling

On Mittwoch, 8. November 2017 11:58:57 CET Goffi wrote: > Le mercredi 8 novembre 2017, 11:18:51 CET Jonas Wielicki a écrit : > > On Mittwoch, 8. November 2017 10:58:06 CET Goffi wrote: > > > > We’re having a nice, civil discussion in xsf@ right now about this, let me > > summarize my current

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Styling

Le mercredi 8 novembre 2017, 11:18:51 CET Jonas Wielicki a écrit : > On Mittwoch, 8. November 2017 10:58:06 CET Goffi wrote: > We’re having a nice, civil discussion in xsf@ right now about this, let me > summarize my current viewpoint on this (as author of the Message Markup > proposal):[SNIP]

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Styling

2017-11-08 11:04 GMT+01:00 Georg Lukas : > * Daniel Gultsch [2017-11-08 10:40]: >> I mild annoyance is that the sending client needs to support this. So >> if i'm using mcabber which doesn't support styling I can never trigger >> styling on the receiving side

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Message Markup

On Dienstag, 7. November 2017 20:34:04 CET Jonas Wielicki wrote: > URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/markup.html It has been brought up in xsf@ that this XEP seems contradictory, because it states in the Requirements: > Textual data and markup metadata MUST be separated strictly. But also

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Styling

On Mittwoch, 8. November 2017 10:58:06 CET Goffi wrote: > Le mercredi 8 novembre 2017, 10:39:49 CET Daniel Gultsch a écrit : > > Reading this the first time I wasn't sure what you mean by opt-in. > > > > But essentially you want each 'styled' message annotated by an > xmlns="styling..."/> tag or

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Styling

* Daniel Gultsch [2017-11-08 10:40]: > I mild annoyance is that the sending client needs to support this. So > if i'm using mcabber which doesn't support styling I can never trigger > styling on the receiving side even if I, as a knowing user, know about > the syntax and the

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Styling

Le mercredi 8 novembre 2017, 10:39:49 CET Daniel Gultsch a écrit : > Reading this the first time I wasn't sure what you mean by opt-in. > > But essentially you want each 'styled' message annotated by an xmlns="styling..."/> tag or something like that. And you want clients > to render those

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Styling

2017-11-07 19:29 GMT+01:00 Jonas Wielicki : > This XEP is incompatible with *sending* clients (be they human or automated) > which are not aware of it. I strongly advocate for an opt-in mechanism (at > which point this is the rejected Body Markup Hints ProtoXEP, but with a

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Message Markup

Le mercredi 8 novembre 2017, 10:11:52 CET Jonas Wielicki a écrit : > On Mittwoch, 8. November 2017 08:29:49 CET Georg Lukas wrote: > > * Goffi [2017-11-08 08:17]: > > > about the stars in the list items, it's not really nice to keep them. > > > > > > It would be good to have an

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Message Markup

On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 10:14:43AM +0100, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > On Mittwoch, 8. November 2017 08:44:16 CET Remko Tronçon wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 7 November 2017 at 21:34, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > > > The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP. > > >

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Message Markup

On 8 November 2017 at 09:14, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > On Mittwoch, 8. November 2017 08:44:16 CET Remko Tronçon wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 7 November 2017 at 21:34, Jonas Wielicki wrote: >> > The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP. >>

Re: [Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0385 (Stateless Inline Media Sharing (SIMS))

On Dienstag, 7. November 2017 13:47:46 CET Arc Riley wrote: > It may be best to have a single XEP cover codec support and reference it as > appropriate. +1, but that shouldn’t stop us from updating SIMS now. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Message Markup

On Mittwoch, 8. November 2017 08:44:16 CET Remko Tronçon wrote: > Hi, > > On 7 November 2017 at 21:34, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > > The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP. > > Minor remark: the XEP says that spans MUST NOT overlap. Is there a reason >

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Message Markup

On Mittwoch, 8. November 2017 08:29:49 CET Georg Lukas wrote: > * Goffi [2017-11-08 08:17]: > > about the stars in the list items, it's not really nice to keep them. > > > > It would be good to have an attribute to say which plain text characters > > can be safely removed