Re: [Standards] XEP-0184: received/ vs. displayed/ vs. read/

On 06/16/2010 08:43 PM, Kozlov Konstantin wrote: The log, attached to the first message clearly says that even author of XEP-0184 do not agree with you, Kevin. So, why do you argue? Maybe we should just choose what we want of this XEP and just re-phrase some sentences. I personaly think

Re: [Standards] Call for Experience: Advancement of XEP-0071 (XHTML-IM) to Final

Hello! 28.09.2012, 16:23, Sergey Dobrov bin...@jrudevels.org: On 09/28/2012 06:35 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:  Another bigger problem is smilies. It's not obvious when the  client should render smilies and when not. I'd prefer to forbid any  text-based smilies in the XHTML-IM content  Some

Re: [Standards] Call for Experience: Advancement of XEP-0071 (XHTML-IM) to Final

Hello, Sergey 08.10.2012, 20:40, Sergey Dobrov bin...@jrudevels.org: Sorry for the double, please consider this message as wrong. On 10/08/2012 11:36 PM, Sergey Dobrov wrote:  The only solution I see is adding special considerations for smilies. The smilies should be converted to some

Re: [Standards] Call for Experience: Advancement of XEP-0071 (XHTML-IM) to Final

Hello!  2. img / element with src attribute, containing URL with special scheme (eg. smilie:), whith path, containing properly escaped textual representation of the smilie. Don't know how complicated a process of inventing a new URI schema is. But I actually think that we can use real

Re: [Standards] Call for Experience: Advancement of XEP-0071 (XHTML-IM) to Final

Hello, Sergey! 09.10.2012, 00:59, Sergey Dobrov bin...@jrudevels.org:  On 10/09/2012 12:04 AM, Kozlov Konstantin wrote:   Well, I don't see any incompatibility with XHTML here.  src attribute is required for img tag in XHTML:   xs:element name=img  xs:complexType

Re: [Standards] disco identity for client/smartphone?

03.12.2012, 12:30, Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk: On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Kozlov Konstantin yag...@yandex.ru wrote:  30.11.2012, 12:26, Kevin Smith ke...@kismith.co.uk:  On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:   Looking at http://xmpp.org

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0301 (In-Band Real Time Text)

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? Yes 3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not, why not? Yes 4.

[Standards] XEP-0167: How to?

Hello! Just trying to implement XEP-0167: Jingle RTP Sessions in my client software. There's something, I can't understand. According to 5. Negotiating a Jingle RTP Session, instances should start exchange media just after session-accept sent and acknowledged and connectivity established. To

[Standards] XEP-0167: Minor typo

Hello! I found a minor typo in XEP-0167: Jingle RTP Sessions, section 5, example 2 comments. Last paragraph says: In the following example, we imagine that the responder supports Speex at a clockrate of 8000 but not 16000, G729, and PCMA but not PMCU. Therefore the responder returns only two

Re: [Standards] XEP-0167: Minor typo

Hello, Florian! 19.06.2016, 11:33, "Florian Schmaus" : > Thanks for your feedback. I've created a patch for this and issued a PR > on github: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/200 > > Feel free to use this way in the future too. :) Thanx, I will. With my best regards,

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Styling

  06.11.2017, 22:19, "Emmanuel Gil Peyrot" :On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 11:58:15AM -0600, Sam Whited wrote:People have been telling you countless times on standards@ thatembedding raw markup in the body is an extremely bad idea, with manyexamples.Markdown(-like) is NOT a plain

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0313 (Message Archive Management)

  24.11.2017, 18:36, "Matthew Wild" :On 19 November 2017 at 16:54, Konstantin Kozlov wrote: The main problem I see so far is inability to determine for which dates message archive is available without reading the whole archive. Author of Vacuum IM (which is an

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

I was talking about "Styling" only. "Markup" is an interesting thing, but I think it's too weak right now. At least image embedding needs to be added to make it possible to replace XEP-0071 with it.20.11.2017, 19:58, "Dave Cridland" :On 20 November 2017 at 16:34, Konstantin

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

Styling. Looks like I've got something mixed up.20.11.2017, 21:28, "Evgeny Khramtsov" :Mon, 20 Nov 2017 21:34:52 +0500Konstantin Kozlov wrote: It's too bad you didn't use your veto against that awful proto.Which proto do you

Re: [Standards] XEP-0136: Message Archiving moved to Deprecated

Too bad...XEP-0313 is still experimental and XEP-0136 is deprecated already.16.11.2017, 00:25, "Sam Whited" :Hi all,This email is to let you know that XEP-0136: Message Archiving [1] hasbeen moved to a stats of Deprecated per a vote of the Council. The newversion will be

Re: [Standards] XEP-0136: Message Archiving moved to Deprecated

Bad thing is that developers of new clents don't know which XEP to implement.XEP-0136 (which is deprecated) or XEP-0313 (which is still experimental and may be deferred, retracted and so on).16.11.2017, 11:12, "Dave Cridland" <d...@cridland.net>:On 16 Nov 2017 7:43 am, "Ko

Re: [Standards] XEP-0136: Message Archiving moved to Deprecated

It's a nice idea to recommend experimental XEP's.16.11.2017, 11:45, "Evgeny Khramtsov" :Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:42:58 +0300Kozlov Konstantin wrote: Bad thing is that developers of new clents don't know which XEP to implement. XEP-0136 (which is deprecated) or

Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Styling

Sounds reassuring. I guess I'll try to join the Council next time.15.11.2017, 10:49, "Jonas Wielicki" :On Mittwoch, 15. November 2017 10:32:29 CET Evgeny Khramtsov wrote: 1) no matter what arguments you bring if a Council member wants it, it will be merged making all XSF

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0313 (Message Archive Management)

That's nice!This XEP is still too raw.15.11.2017, 19:58, "Sam Whited" :Given the feedback on this thread, the council voted today NOT toadvance XEP-0313 to draft.The XEP will return to experimental until some of the feedback isaddressed.—SamOn Mon, Oct 16, 2017, at 12:38, Jonas

Re: [Standards] OBSOLETED: XEP-0071 (XHTML-IM)

Hello! 07.03.2018, 19:19, "Guus der Kinderen" :Primarily due to security concerns. There's a lot of discussion available in the mail archive. This is a good place to start: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2017-October/033546.html Thank you! I just read the

Re: [Standards] OBSOLETED: XEP-0071 (XHTML-IM)

Hello! 07.03.2018, 19:18, "Jonas Wielicki" <jo...@wielicki.name>:On 7 March 2018 17:13:26 CET, Kozlov Konstantin <yag...@yandex.ru> wrote:___Standards mailing listInfo: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standardsUnsubscri

Re: [Standards] OBSOLETED: XEP-0071 (XHTML-IM)

 Hello! 07.03.2018, 19:55, "Sam Whited" <s...@samwhited.com>:On Wed, Mar 7, 2018, at 10:13, Kozlov Konstantin wrote: Yes, this XEP has its disadvantages, but almos all of modern clients do implement it and there is no XEP right now, which can substitute it.TL;DR — almost all o

Re: [Standards] OBSOLETED: XEP-0071 (XHTML-IM)

Hello! 07.03.2018, 21:20, "Jonas Wielicki" :As for an replacement, it depends on your use-case. There’s [XEP-0393](Message Styling) which should cover many IM use-cases. I started to work on[XEP-0394] (Message Markup) which intends to do a bit more, with a moreflexible

Re: [Standards] Call for Experience: XEP-0066: Out of Band Data

Hello! 07.03.2018, 22:18, "Jonas Wielicki (XSF Editor)" :The XEP Editor would like to Call for Experience with XEP-0066 beforepresenting it to the Council for advancing it to Final status.During the Call for Experience, please answer the following questions:1. What software

Re: [Standards] OBSOLETED: XEP-0071 (XHTML-IM)

Hello! 08.03.2018, 12:18, "Dave Cridland" :The personal choice of Council was to deprecate XHTML-IM based onthese facts. The previous Council decided to ensure there werealternates for XHTML-IM use-cases instead of deprecating.Deprecating is not a serious problem. The probleb is

Re: [Standards] OBSOLETED: XEP-0071 (XHTML-IM)

Hello! 08.03.2018, 10:52, "Jonas Wielicki" :In contrast to XML, XHTML-IM is a custom thing which needs to be re-implemented in ~every client. Well-known XML libraries exist for mostlanguages (even if they only FFI to libxml2 or libexpat).According to my experience, building a

Re: [Standards] Call for Experience: XEP-0048: Bookmarks

Hello! 07.03.2018, 22:18, "Jonas Wielicki (XSF Editor)" :The XEP Editor would like to Call for Experience with XEP-0048 beforepresenting it to the Council for advancing it to Final status.During the Call for Experience, please answer the following questions:1. What software

Re: [Standards] OBSOLETED: XEP-0071 (XHTML-IM)

Hello! 08.03.2018, 14:15, "Jonas Wielicki" <jo...@wielicki.name>:On Donnerstag, 8. März 2018 10:38:55 CET Kozlov Konstantin wrote: Hello! 08.03.2018, 12:18, "Dave Cridland" <d...@cridland.net>: The personal choice of Council was to deprecate XHTML-IM based on t

Re: [Standards] OBSOLETED: XEP-0071 (XHTML-IM)

Hello! 08.03.2018, 12:58, "Goffi" <go...@goffi.org>:Le mercredi 7 mars 2018, 19:21:45 CET Kozlov Konstantin a écrit :  Thank you for your reply. Yes, I know about those two. As for XEP-0394, I feel so bad the XEP idea, so I don't even want to discuss the XEP itself.Out of curious

Re: [Standards] XEP-0394: too weak to replace XEP-0071

Hello! 15.03.2018, 18:30, "Ненахов Андрей" :Using markdown for text formatting is a bad idea.  Markdown is used as a simple means to give a semi-rich text formating where complex WISIWYG editors can't be used. Like, webpage contents editing in many CMSs. However,

Re: [Standards] XEP-0394: too weak to replace XEP-0071

Hello! 16.03.2018, 11:31, "Ненахов Андрей" :btw, I'm new here, what were the reasons for deprecating XEP-0071 ?It's a new tradition here: deprecate XEP not because it is bad, but because there is a lot of bad implementations around.And a lot of bad implementations

Re: [Standards] XEP-0393 and XEP-0394 naming

r 0393. From: Standards <standards-boun...@xmpp.org> on behalf of Sam Whited <s...@samwhited.com>Sent: 08 March 2018 16:35To: standards@xmpp.orgSubject: Re: [Standards] XEP-0393 and XEP-0394 naming On Thu, Mar 8, 2018, at 10:26, Kozlov Konstantin wrote:> Yes, maybe. It was just

[Standards] [STANDARDS] XEP-0394: too weak to replace XEP-0071

Hello! Powerful XEP-0071, implemented in many clients is deprecated now.I guess, It's time to think about substitution it with another one. As I mentioned before, there is no XEP, which can substitute it right now.We have XEP-0393 and XEP-0394, whch potentially can provide functionality of

Re: [Standards] [STANDARDS] XEP-0394: too weak to replace XEP-0071

Hello!The problem of XEP-0393 is that markup mixed with plain text and it's hard to purge it from it.With XEP-0393 client MUST support XEP-0393 to get plain text without formatting. So using XEP-0393 with XEP-0394 together is useless:Client which supports XEP-0394 only will display formatted text

Re: [Standards] XEP-0394: too weak to replace XEP-0071

Hello! 15.03.2018, 13:33, "W. Martin Borgert" <deba...@debian.org>:On 2018-03-15 10:22, Kozlov Konstantin wrote: I don't want to discuss XEP-0393, 'cause the whole idea of using LML in IM sounds bad. Flaws if it is obvious, so it's needless to mention them again.I disagree

Re: [Standards] XEP-0394: too weak to replace XEP-0071

  15.03.2018, 16:31, "Jonas Wielicki" :Okay, so since I’m not going to get around to updating '394 this month andthere’s considerable interest, I’ll write down what I have in mind:* Emphasis, Strong emphasis, inline-preformatted (code)* Enumerations* Itemized lists* Headings

Re: [Standards] XEP-0394: too weak to replace XEP-0071

Hello! 15.03.2018, 17:40, "Sam Whited" <s...@samwhited.com>:On Thu, Mar 15, 2018, at 02:22, Kozlov Konstantin wrote:  1. Embedding pics into messages: ~80%. Pics are used to display memes, as custom smilies, as parts congratulation cards, as small parts of screenshots to e

Re: [Standards] [STANDARDS] XEP-0394: too weak to replace XEP-0071

Hello! 15.03.2018, 17:40, "Sam Whited" :Custom smileys should probably be its own XEP, but I agree we should make something for that at some point.Attatching images is better handled by XEP-0066 and does not need to be a part of a message formatting spec. It's likely that even

[Standards] XEP-0393 and XEP-0394 naming

Hello! Discussing XEP-0393 and XEP-0394 I mixed them up a few times. That's because their names are really confusing. I think "Markup" more suits for XEP-0393 and "Styling" for XEP-0394.I guess, we should think about renaming those XEPs to make their names less confusing. With my best

Re: [Standards] XEP-0393 and XEP-0394 naming

Hello! 08.03.2018, 19:03, "Sam Whited" <s...@samwhited.com>:On Thu, Mar 8, 2018, at 10:01, Kozlov Konstantin wrote: I think "Markup" more suits for XEP-0393 and "Styling" for XEP-0394.I guess, we should think about renaming those XEPs to make their

Re: [Standards] XEP-0393 and XEP-0394 naming

Hello! 08.03.2018, 19:20, "Dave Cridland" <d...@cridland.net>:On 8 March 2018 at 16:18, Kozlov Konstantin <yag...@yandex.ru> wrote: The XEPs are not so widely implemented for the moment to care much about it.Actually, I think XEP-0393 has several implementations in widel

Re: [Standards] XEP-0393 and XEP-0394 naming

Hello! 08.03.2018, 19:24, "Sam Whited" <s...@samwhited.com>:On Thu, Mar 8, 2018, at 10:18, Kozlov Konstantin wrote: For example we may rename XEP-0393 to "Markdown" 'cause its syntax somewhat similar to Markdown[1] language.That seems even more confusing than the othe

Re: [Standards] OBSOLETED: XEP-0071 (XHTML-IM)

I wonder, why this one was obsoleted?Yes, this XEP has its disadvantages, but almos all of modern clients do implement it and there is no XEP right now, which can substitute it. 28.02.2018, 21:24, "Jonas Wielicki (XSF Editor)" :Version 1.5.3 of XEP-0071 (XHTML-IM) has been

Re: [Standards] Call for Experience: XEP-0092: Software Version

14.03.2018, 20:30, "Jonas Wielicki (XSF Editor)" :The XEP Editor would like to Call for Experience with XEP-0092 beforepresenting it to the Council for advancing it to Final status.During the Call for Experience, please answer the following questions:1. What software has

Re: [Standards] Call for Experience: XEP-0122: Data Forms Validation

14.03.2018, 20:30, "Jonas Wielicki (XSF Editor)" :The XEP Editor would like to Call for Experience with XEP-0122 beforepresenting it to the Council for advancing it to Final status.During the Call for Experience, please answer the following questions:1. What software has

Re: [Standards] Call for Experience: XEP-0066: Out of Band Data

Hello! 21.03.2018, 14:32, "Christian Schudt" :Maybe you are right. It was just a guess, because someone asked for the purpose of 0066.Because the uploaded file is persistent (at least for some time), I concluded that the purpose is for offline file transfer.Maybe the

Re: [Standards] XEP-0394: too weak to replace XEP-0071

Hello! 19.03.2018, 11:01, "Jonas Wielicki" <jo...@wielicki.name>:On Freitag, 16. März 2018 12:11:31 CET Kozlov Konstantin wrote: Yes. CSS is really a hard part. But we don't need full support of CSS for IM message styling. Maybe it's better to simplify XEP by specifying a small sub

Re: [Standards] XEP-0394: too weak to replace XEP-0071

Hello, Jonas! 21.03.2018, 12:25, "Jonas Wielicki" :  Maybe. It was originally my idea: I just can't figure out how client, which supors XEP-0394 only and knows nothing about XP-0393 may understand which parts of styled text fragment to remove?It’s going to be written down in

Re: [Standards] XEP-0394: too weak to replace XEP-0071

Hello, Jonas! 19.03.2018, 10:51, "Jonas Wielicki" :A client can use 394 without support 393 just fine. I don’t see where you gotthis notion from, I guess my initial mail on this was unclear.Maybe. It was originally my idea: I just can't figure out how client, which supors

Re: [Standards] Call for Experience: XEP-0066: Out of Band Data

Hello! 23.03.2018, 02:28, "Emmanuel Gil Peyrot" <linkma...@linkmauve.fr>:Hi,On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 11:57:52AM +0300, Kozlov Konstantin wrote:I don't see any XEP which describes of full procedure of file transferusing OOB.But [1]XEP-0095: Stream Initiation has [2]ment

Re: [Standards] XEP-0394: too weak to replace XEP-0071

Hello! 16.03.2018, 12:18, "Jonas Wielicki" :So, believe me that I can understand your frustration. In the discussion lastoctober (you’ll find it in the archives there, or see [0]), I was on the "noway we’re going to deprecate XHTML-IM in favour of a hack like '393" side,too. I

Re: [Standards] Council Voting Summary 2019-07-28

The only thing about it which makes me feel bad is using Emoji.Using User Mood element instead sounds much better for me.29.07.2019, 15:32, "Georg Lukas" :* Tedd Sterr [2019-07-29 03:16]: Proposed XMPP Extension: Message Reactions -

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0393 (Message Styling)

Hello! 12.05.2020, 22:36, "Jonas Schäfer (XSF Editor)" :This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments onXEP-0393.Title: Message StylingAbstract:This specification defines a formatted text syntax for use in instantmessages with simple text styling.URL:

Re: [Standards] Council Minutes 2020-05-27

Hello! 01.06.2020, 01:53, "Tedd Sterr" : 4c) Advance XEP-0393 (Message Styling) - https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0393.htmlDave quite likes this, but is aware that many people don't.Jonas has a multitude of concerns: community recommendations for an explicit opt-in switch; no way to replace this

Re: [Standards] Council Minutes 2020-05-27

01.06.2020, 14:31, "Andrew Nenakhov" :пн, 1 июн. 2020 г. в 16:02, Kozlov Konstantin <yag...@yandex.ru>: That's nice, that this XEP wasn't advanced yet. This encourages me to fore work on XEP-0394: Message Markup, which I beleive is much better and has more potential, than this one.