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" :On 7 March 2018 17:13:26 CET, Kozlov Konstantin wrote:___Standards mailing listInfo: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standardsUnsubscribe:

Re: [Standards] [Council] XMPP Council Minutes 2018-03-07

On 07.03.2018 19:14, Dave Cridland wrote: > My votes: > On 7 March 2018 at 17:47, Dave Cridland wrote: >> 19) CFE for XEP-0131: Stanza Headers and Internet Metadata >> https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0131.html >> >> Georg, Daniel, Kev +1, Sam +0 >> > > I really dislike this

Re: [Standards] 0174 Serverless Messaging: Discovering Capabilities

Quoting Peter Saint-Andre : Well, it worked OK at small conferences when universal connectivity wasn't so common in the pre-smartphone days (folks had a lot of fun using it in Adium and iChat back then), but I haven't seen it used since 2010 or so. It went to Draft and Final

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

 Hello! 07.03.2018, 19:55, "Sam Whited" :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 of modern clients that

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

The XEP Editor would like to Call for Experience with XEP-0048 before presenting it to the Council for advancing it to Final status. During the Call for Experience, please answer the following questions: 1. What software has XEP-0048 implemented? Please note that the protocol must be

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

The XEP Editor would like to Call for Experience with XEP-0066 before presenting it to the Council for advancing it to Final status. During the Call for Experience, please answer the following questions: 1. What software has XEP-0066 implemented? Please note that the protocol must be

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

On Mittwoch, 7. März 2018 20:17:24 CET Jonas Wielicki wrote: > 1. What software has XEP-0048 implemented? We have support for Private XML (XEP-0049)-based bookmarks in aioxmpp (LGPLv3) and based on that in JabberCat (GPLv3). We haven’t gotten around to implement PEP-based bookmarks, even though

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

Due to popular request, I’m going to re-post the reply I gave earlier on GitHub: The core reason is that it caused quite a few XSS vulnerabilities. There are lengthy threads on the standars mailing list: * starting with Security issues with XHTML-IM (again) [1] * some discussion on replacement

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] XMPP Council Minutes 2018-03-07

As an experiment, the actions from this meeting are at https://github.com/xsf/xeps/issues/601 On 7 March 2018 at 17:47, Dave Cridland wrote: > A short reminder on Council voting: > > Council can vote on anything - while a Call For Experience is not a > "Status Change" and thus

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

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018, at 12:33, Kozlov Konstantin wrote: > So, the only reason to obsolete the XEP is not the XEP itself, but bad > implementations? In a sense. Fixing the existing broken implementation doesn't fix the underlying problem though. It's more about the fact that any tiny mistake

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

On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 07:17:24PM -, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > The XEP Editor would like to Call for Experience with XEP-0048 before > presenting it to the Council for advancing it to Final status. > > > During the Call for Experience, please answer the following questions: > > 1. What

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

1. What software has XEP-0066 implemented? Gajim, only 3. communicating a uri via message 2. Have developers experienced any problems with the protocol as defined in XEP-0066? Not with 3., but cant comment on the other XEP Parts 3. Is the text of XEP-0066 clear and unambiguous? Are

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

> 1. What software has XEP-0048 implemented? Please note that the > protocol must be implemented in at least two separate codebases (at > least one of which must be free or open-source software) in order to > advance from Draft to Final. Enough. > 2. Have developers experienced any problems with

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

On Donnerstag, 8. März 2018 07:38:42 CET Daniel Gultsch wrote: > It feels a bit sad that we aren't able to advance a XEP that is widely > deployed (in a way) but I think it is just too late. Can’t we revert to XEP-0049 (if no other XEP-0223 implementations show up), advance *that* to final and

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

Same what Philipp said. Most (not all) clients I know implement a small subset of the XEP to basically annotate that the URL that is already in the body of the message should be treated as an 'attachment' or a file download instead of a regular text URL. This feels like an odd hack and not the

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

2018-03-07 20:17 GMT+01:00 Jonas Wielicki : > The XEP Editor would like to Call for Experience with XEP-0048 before > presenting it to the Council for advancing it to Final status. > > > During the Call for Experience, please answer the following questions: > > 1. What

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)

Wed, 07 Mar 2018 21:33:13 +0300 Kozlov Konstantin wrote: > So, the only reason to obsolete the XEP is not the XEP itself, but > bad implementations? Yes. This is kinda religion among some Council members that if a technology can be misused then it should be deprecated. Their

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

On Donnerstag, 8. März 2018 07:54:04 CET Evgeny Khramtsov wrote: > Wed, 07 Mar 2018 21:33:13 +0300 > > Kozlov Konstantin wrote: > > So, the only reason to obsolete the XEP is not the XEP itself, but > > bad implementations? > > Yes. This is kinda religion among some Council

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

2018-03-08 8:22 GMT+01:00 Jonas Wielicki : > On Donnerstag, 8. März 2018 07:38:42 CET Daniel Gultsch wrote: >> It feels a bit sad that we aren't able to advance a XEP that is widely >> deployed (in a way) but I think it is just too late. > > Can’t we revert to XEP-0049 (if no

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

Am 07.03.2018 um 19:18 schrieb Jonas Wielicki: > I started to work on > [XEP-0394] (Message Markup) which intends to do a bit more, with a more > flexible approach. Note that I intend to overhaul XEP-0394 and I don’t know > of > any implementations. FYI: I implemented it for Smack :)

[Standards] XMPP Council Minutes 2018-03-07

A short reminder on Council voting: Council can vote on anything - while a Call For Experience is not a "Status Change" and thus does not require a vote, Council can still vote to ask the Editor to do one. Council members vote either +1 or 0 (the latter is often written signed, and may indicate a

Re: [Standards] 0174 Serverless Messaging: Discovering Capabilities

> Are people still using this technology? In my experience, it was a fun > experiment in ~2006 but didn't work well in practice: too chatty over > the network, presence never worked correctly, you'd send a message to > someone and it turns out they weren't available, etc. I was considering

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

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 of modern clients that implement it implement it in an insecure manner

Re: [Standards] 0174 Serverless Messaging: Discovering Capabilities

On 3/7/18 9:48 AM, Christian Schudt wrote: >> Are people still using this technology? In my experience, it was a fun >> experiment in ~2006 but didn't work well in practice: too chatty over >> the network, presence never worked correctly, you'd send a message to >> someone and it turns out they

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] What is the size limit of node and item ids in XEP-0060: Publish-Subscribe?

On 3/6/18 1:02 AM, Jonas Wielicki wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Thank you very much for the clarification, comments inline. > > On Dienstag, 6. März 2018 02:59:04 CET Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> On 3/5/18 12:17 AM, Jonas Wielicki wrote: >>> On Sonntag, 4. März 2018 19:42:39 CET Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

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

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 On 7 March 2018 at 17:13, Kozlov Konstantin wrote: > I wonder, why this one was

Re: [Standards] 0174 Serverless Messaging: Discovering Capabilities

On 3/5/18 3:37 PM, Christian Schudt wrote: > Hi, > > I find the whole passage „Discovering Capabilities“ of Serverless Messaging > [1] a bit confusing. Are people still using this technology? In my experience, it was a fun experiment in ~2006 but didn't work well in practice: too chatty over