Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0402 (Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious))

On 2020/02/13, Florian Schmaus wrote: > On 1/29/20 5:33 PM, Jonas Schäfer (XSF Editor) wrote: > > This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on > > XEP-0402. > > > > Title: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious) > > Abstract: > > This specification defines a syntax and storage

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0402 (Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious))

On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 20:14, Florian Schmaus wrote: > On 1/29/20 5:33 PM, Jonas Schäfer (XSF Editor) wrote: > > This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on > > XEP-0402. > > > > Title: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious) > > Abstract: > > This specification defines a syntax

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0402 (Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious))

On 1/29/20 5:33 PM, Jonas Schäfer (XSF Editor) wrote: > This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on > XEP-0402. > > Title: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious) > Abstract: > This specification defines a syntax and storage profile for keeping a > list of chatroom bookmarks on

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0402 (Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious))

On 2/13/20 8:31 PM, Dave Cridland wrote: > On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 at 16:54, Georg Lukas > wrote: > Persistence: certain PEP implementations from the past, which are still > distributed by major OS platforms, chose to implement PEP in a > non-persistent way, only

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0402 (Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious))

Georg, On Wed, 12 Feb 2020 at 16:54, Georg Lukas wrote: > * Jonas Schäfer [2020-01-29 17:34]: > > 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol > > stack or to clarify an existing protocol? > > Yes, it's a significant improvement over existing bookmarks. > > > 2. Does the

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0402 (Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious))

These are late Last Call comments, but seeing as I'm an author *and* on the Council, I figured better late than never... On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 16:33, Jonas Schäfer wrote: > This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on > XEP-0402. > > Title: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0402 (Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious))

* Jonas Schäfer [2020-01-29 17:34]: > 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol > stack or to clarify an existing protocol? Yes, it's a significant improvement over existing bookmarks. > 2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction > and

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0402 (Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious))

Am Mo., 3. Feb. 2020 um 13:56 Uhr schrieb Maxime Buquet : > > I forgot to add that the "autojoin" attribute is likely going to > conflict with 0430 Inbox' features. Which one should I respect if I > implement both XEPs? I think there is less overlap with 'Inbox' as this just gives us faster

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0402 (Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious))

> >Bikeshed: "Atomic Bookmarks in PEP"? > > I like it, it's more descriptive. I agree. It's a much better name. ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0402 (Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious))

Am 30. Januar 2020 11:44:33 MEZ schrieb "Jonas Schäfer" : >On Donnerstag, 30. Januar 2020 08:45:22 CET Daniel Gultsch wrote: >> Am Mi., 29. Jan. 2020 um 16:34 Uhr schrieb Jonas Schäfer >: >> > 5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written? >> >> I share Sam’s concerns regarding the

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0402 (Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious))

On 03.02.20 18:34, Dave Cridland wrote: > Very quick note: I've picked up an entertaining virus while at FOSDEM - > hopefully not *that* coronavirus - so I'm not thinking clear enough to > respond to the comments here but I am reading them. > > At the moment, I don't think there's anything I find

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0402 (Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious))

Very quick note: I've picked up an entertaining virus while at FOSDEM - hopefully not *that* coronavirus - so I'm not thinking clear enough to respond to the comments here but I am reading them. At the moment, I don't think there's anything I find myself moved to argue against; Maxime's point

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0402 (Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious))

On 2020/02/03, Maxime Buquet wrote: > > 3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not, > > why not? > > I have not implemented it yet, but I would. > > As this spec allows to handle bookmarks separately, it's easier to > handle group/Enterprise(tm) bookmarks. The server can

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0402 (Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious))

My answer is a mix of what Sam, Daniel, and lovetox say. :) > This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business on > 2020-02-12. > Please consider the following questions during this Last Call and send > your feedback to the standards@xmpp.org discussion list: > 1. Is this

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0402 (Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious))

On Donnerstag, 30. Januar 2020 08:45:22 CET Daniel Gultsch wrote: > Am Mi., 29. Jan. 2020 um 16:34 Uhr schrieb Jonas Schäfer : > > 5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written? > > I share Sam’s concerns regarding the title. > > Maybe the benefits of Bookmarks 2 over Bookmarks need to

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0402 (Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious))

Am Mi., 29. Jan. 2020 um 16:34 Uhr schrieb Jonas Schäfer : > > This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on > XEP-0402. > > Title: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious) > Abstract: > This specification defines a syntax and storage profile for keeping a > list of chatroom bookmarks

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0402 (Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious))

> 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol > stack or to clarify an existing protocol? > Yes > 2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction > and requirements? > It solves the problem described and introduces a new problem. Migration to this

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0402 (Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious))

I would like to mention again that as funny as the title is, we should stop this trend of putting silly things after the XEP title. They do not add value, they make it harder to cite (do I really have to write the joke after every single use of the title when referencing it from another XEP, for

[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0402 (Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious))

This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on XEP-0402. Title: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious) Abstract: This specification defines a syntax and storage profile for keeping a list of chatroom bookmarks on the server. URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0402.html This Last