The XMPP Council will be holding its regular meeting tomorrow (Wednesday) at
1600 UTC.
The agenda is collated from (in order of reliability):
* Github pull requests and issues marked "Needs Council":
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/labels/Needs%20Council
* Relevant mails from the Standards List:
> * Old participants never die, they're merely removed from the pubsub
> node and require endless searching through MAM, or having all their data
> copied to the outgoing messages. [..]
I don't understand what this is about. Can you expand?
Given a message, (some/many/rare) clients
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 18:08, Ralph Meijer wrote:
> In general, I think that explicit is usually better than implicit. While
> I can see how a sensible default might be useful. It brings up some
> issues with users that use multiple different clients.
>
Yeah, and bots, and so on. I'm convinced
Ralph,
> -Original Message-
> From: Standards On Behalf Of Ralph Meijer
> Sent: 18 March 2019 18:07
> To: standards@xmpp.org
> Subject: Re: [Standards] MIX
>
> Hi,
>
> I started working on this reply last week, I still need to fully address
the
> PubSub/MAM/MIX thing, but that'll have
Dave,
We’ve been looking at operating MIX without MIX-PAM.
It seems clear that trying to do this is rather against a basic part of the MIX
model (sending messages to users, not clients) and is fraught with issues,
particularly multi-client.
I feel quite strongly that we should NOT
Dave,
Comments below, in red.
From: Standards On Behalf Of Dave Cridland
Sent: 18 March 2019 17:43
To: XMPP Standards
Subject: Re: [Standards] MIX
Have removed and added reference to XEP-0359
That would, mind, be a breaking change - so I hope you're bumping the namespace.
