Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

The 'autojoin' flag name is a bit misleading in the time of always-on clients. Maybe we should change the text to indicate that a client is supposed to join and stay joined(!) if this flag is set, and maybe also to automatically leave when the flag is unset. I’d argue that clients should

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

Am 22. März 2018 08:28:21 MEZ schrieb Matthew Wild : >On 21 March 2018 at 17:27, Maxime Buquet wrote: >> On 2018/03/21, Sam Whited wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018, at 12:01, Kevin Smith wrote: >>> > I’d argue (and did at the Summit) that the opposite is true

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

On 2018/03/22, Matthew Wild wrote: > We're discussing the protocol, but there is nothing stopping clients > having their own overrides (i.e. local autojoin rooms). This could be > as simple as, when you join a room for the first time "Do you want to > join this room on all devices?" -> if the user

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

On 22 March 2018 at 07:51, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > On Donnerstag, 22. März 2018 08:36:10 CET Matthew Wild wrote: >> As per the logic described in my previous email, you can either set >> autojoin and explicitly leave the room on your mobile when it >> autojoins - the client

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

On Donnerstag, 22. März 2018 08:36:10 CET Matthew Wild wrote: > On 21 March 2018 at 18:37, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > > On Mittwoch, 21. März 2018 18:07:53 CET Sam Whited wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018, at 12:01, Kevin Smith wrote: > >> > I’d argue (and did at the Summit) that

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

On 21 March 2018 at 18:37, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > On Mittwoch, 21. März 2018 18:07:53 CET Sam Whited wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018, at 12:01, Kevin Smith wrote: >> > I’d argue (and did at the Summit) that the opposite is true and that if >> > we want (especially impromptu)

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

On 21 March 2018 at 17:27, Maxime Buquet wrote: > On 2018/03/21, Sam Whited wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018, at 12:01, Kevin Smith wrote: >> > I’d argue (and did at the Summit) that the opposite is true and that if >> > we want (especially impromptu) MUC to start working nicely

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

On 21 Mar 2018 23:09, "W. Martin Borgert" wrote: Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I would like to have some rooms autojoined when I'm at home, but not when at work. And vice versa. Logical next step is to ask for separate sets of contacts at home and at work.

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

On Mittwoch, 21. März 2018 18:07:53 CET Sam Whited wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018, at 12:01, Kevin Smith wrote: > > I’d argue (and did at the Summit) that the opposite is true and that if > > we want (especially impromptu) MUC to start working nicely across > > multiple accounts we need clients to

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

Quoting Matthew Wild : The whole point of the autojoin logic was to keep clients synchronised. Either we want clients in sync or we don't. And I think we do. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I would like to have some rooms autojoined when I'm at home, but not when at work. And

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

On 2018/03/21, Maxime Buquet wrote: > On 2018/03/21, Sam Whited wrote: > > I agree with this; when I do something on one client, I almost always want > > it synced to my other clients. Room joining and parting is the same. > > Similarly, just because my connection dropped and came back up a

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

On 2018/03/21, Sam Whited wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018, at 12:01, Kevin Smith wrote: > > I’d argue (and did at the Summit) that the opposite is true and that if > > we want (especially impromptu) MUC to start working nicely across > > multiple accounts we need clients to react to the user

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

On Wed, Mar 21, 2018, at 12:01, Kevin Smith wrote: > I’d argue (and did at the Summit) that the opposite is true and that if > we want (especially impromptu) MUC to start working nicely across > multiple accounts we need clients to react to the user leaving rooms > manually by disabling the

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

On 21 March 2018 at 17:01, Kevin Smith wrote: > > >> On 20 Mar 2018, at 18:21, Jonas Wielicki wrote: >> >> On Dienstag, 20. März 2018 19:12:57 CET Georg Lukas wrote: The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP. Title:

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

> On 20 Mar 2018, at 18:21, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > > On Dienstag, 20. März 2018 19:12:57 CET Georg Lukas wrote: >>> The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP. >>> Title: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious) >> >> A number of issues I have with the

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

On 2018/03/20, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > On Dienstag, 20. März 2018 19:12:57 CET Georg Lukas wrote: > > > The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP. > > > Title: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious) > > > > A number of issues I have with the current Bookmarks XEPs, and that

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 05:27:05PM +0100, Daniel Gultsch wrote: > The security section needs a bit about the correct use of > publish-options or developers will get that wrong. I updated the security section of the XEP in a branch a few days ago already, but the change is still in a PR.

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

Hi, Based on the discussion we had on this ML a couple of weeks ago ([Standards] What is the size limit of node and item ids in XEP-0060: Publish-Subscribe? https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2018-March/034410.html). I see that this XEP define the item ids of the Pubsub nodes this

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

On Dienstag, 20. März 2018 19:12:57 CET Georg Lukas wrote: > > The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP. > > Title: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious) > > A number of issues I have with the current Bookmarks XEPs, and that I'd > like to see addressed in the mid-term

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

> The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP. > Title: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious) A number of issues I have with the current Bookmarks XEPs, and that I'd like to see addressed in the mid-term future (ideally by adding them to Bookmarks2): 1) Auto-Join The

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

The security section needs a bit about the correct use of publish-options or developers will get that wrong. 2018-03-18 14:34 GMT+01:00 Jonas Wielicki : > The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP. > > Title: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious) >

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

Hi, Would it be possible to extend this to also allow the storage of Pubsub subscriptions (reusing the urn:xmpp:pubsub:subscription namespace defined in XEP-0330 https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0330.html)? This would allow 'social clients' like Movim or Salut à Toi to store their favorite

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

On 18 March 2018 at 21:59, Sebastian Riese wrote: > On 18.03.2018 21:30, Guus der Kinderen wrote: >> On 18 March 2018 at 18:56, Jonas Wielicki wrote: >> >>> On Sonntag, 18. März 2018 18:48:49 CET Guus der Kinderen wrote: Having implemented 0048

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

Hi to all, On 18.03.2018 21:30, Guus der Kinderen wrote: > On 18 March 2018 at 18:56, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > >> On Sonntag, 18. März 2018 18:48:49 CET Guus der Kinderen wrote: >>> Having implemented 0048 via 0223 earlier this week, I can only applaud an >>> effort of

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

On 18 March 2018 at 18:56, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > On Sonntag, 18. März 2018 18:48:49 CET Guus der Kinderen wrote: > > Having implemented 0048 via 0223 earlier this week, I can only applaud an > > effort of making the documentation easier to digest. Thanks for this! > > > >

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

Sun, 18 Mar 2018 21:17:16 +0100 Philipp Hörist wrote: > If you want to work on MUC, there are a hundred threads about the > upcoming MIX standard. I hope this will never become an adopted standard. ___ Standards mailing list Info:

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

2018-03-18 19:47 GMT+01:00 Ненахов Андрей : > If the only reason to have bookmarks is to store there information about > conference rooms, can we instead concentrate on better MUC standard that > does not rely on various crutches like bookmarks to work properly

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

If the only reason to have bookmarks is to store there information about conference rooms, can we instead concentrate on better MUC standard that does not rely on various crutches like bookmarks to work properly across connected clients? On 18 Mar 2018 18:36, "Jonas Wielicki"

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

Sun, 18 Mar 2018 18:56:48 +0100 Jonas Wielicki wrote: > Two or more clients updating different bookmarks at the same time (or > maybe at different times, but one had a network outage inbetween and > can only actually perform the update at a later time). Currently, it >

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

On Sonntag, 18. März 2018 18:48:49 CET Guus der Kinderen wrote: > Having implemented 0048 via 0223 earlier this week, I can only applaud an > effort of making the documentation easier to digest. Thanks for this! > > I am, however not sold on the idea of having a bookmark-per-item: what > problem

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

Having implemented 0048 via 0223 earlier this week, I can only applaud an effort of making the documentation easier to digest. Thanks for this! I am, however not sold on the idea of having a bookmark-per-item: what problem is that solving, or what benefit does this give us? I appreciate how it

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

Looks great, thanks Dave and JC! The only feedback I'd like to give is that the password field should be removed. If use of the password field is not recommended, why have it? It seems perfectly fine to say that you can't autojoin password protected MUCs without a prompt or that individual

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

On 18 March 2018 at 14:07, Daniel Gultsch wrote: > Hi > > I would like to see a disco feature for the compat mode (4.2). > This way I as a client developer know when it is safe to store > bookmarks using this method and this method only without loosing > legacy clients. >

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

Hi I would like to see a disco feature for the compat mode (4.2). This way I as a client developer know when it is safe to store bookmarks using this method and this method only without loosing legacy clients. Furthermore we'd have something the Compliance Tester can pick up on. While I see that

[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Bookmarks 2 (This Time it's Serious)

The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP. 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/inbox/bookmarks2.html The