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

On Donnerstag, 8. März 2018 08:28:27 CET Daniel Gultsch wrote: > 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)

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

Thu, 08 Mar 2018 08:51:26 +0100 Jonas Wielicki wrote: > How many XMPP clients have you seen which were owned by Billion > Laughs (which uses entities which are explicitly forbidden in RFC6120 > and trivial to turn off in all XML parsers I’ve seen so far) compared > to the

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] 0174 Serverless Messaging: Discovering Capabilities

On 7 March 2018 at 16:26, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > 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

[Standards] DEPRECATED: XEP-0020 (Feature Negotiation)

Version 1.6 of XEP-0020 (Feature Negotiation) has been released. Abstract: This specification defines an XMPP protocol extension that enables two entities to mutually negotiate feature options, such as parameters related to a file transfer or a communications session. Changelog: Deprecated as

[Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0153 (vCard-Based Avatars)

Version 1.1 of XEP-0153 (vCard-Based Avatars) has been released. Abstract: This document provides historical documentation of a vCard-based protocol for exchanging user avatars. Changelog: Clarify encoding of the photo hash in the presence update. (jwi) URL:

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

On 8 March 2018 at 08:34, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote: > TL;DR: I conclude that the only argument is that XML is a bit more > secure (with possibly less possible holes, lol). So, as I thought, this > is purely a matter of personal choice and not a technical decision, > that's why

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

> However I'm not really sure what the intended purpose of this XEP is > and if we still have a use case for that purpose. I understood the purpose as follows: a) You upload some file to a server (nowadays you could also use XEP-363). b) You send a message to a contact with XEP-0066. c) Contact

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

On 7 March 2018 at 18:35, Florian Schmaus wrote: > 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 >>>

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

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 curiousity, what do you dislike in this XEP? I actually find the

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

Can't make a detailed review today, so here's quickly: the XEP is implemented in SàT using both private XML storage (XEP-0049) and PEP. There are several issues with this XEP, the most important being the race condition can be specially bad as all bookmarks are saved in the same item. Also

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

On Donnerstag, 8. März 2018 10:38:55 CET Kozlov Konstantin wrote: > Hello! > > 08.03.2018, 12:18, "Dave Cridland" : > The personal choice of Council was to deprecate XHTML-IM based on > these facts. The previous Council decided to ensure there were > alternates for XHTML-IM

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

[Standards] DEPRECATED: XEP-0071 (XHTML-IM)

Version 1.5.4 of XEP-0071 (XHTML-IM) has been released. Abstract: This specification defines an XHTML 1.0 Integration Set for use in exchanging instant messages that contain lightweight text markup. The protocol enables an XMPP entity to format a message using a small range of commonly-used HTML

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

Hello! 08.03.2018, 14:15, "Jonas Wielicki" :On Donnerstag, 8. März 2018 10:38:55 CET Kozlov Konstantin wrote: Hello! 08.03.2018, 12:18, "Dave Cridland" : The personal choice of Council was to deprecate XHTML-IM based on these facts. The previous Council

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

Hello! 08.03.2018, 12:58, "Goffi" :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 curiousity, what do you

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

Hi guys, I usually only read to understand and learn but sometimes I head up and freak out with some decision. I usually read RFC and when a new one is released it supersedes, deprecates or obsoletes another one. But, the status of that RFC usually is definitive. Obviously it's definitive

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

On 8 March 2018 at 10:54, Manuel Rubio wrote: > Hi guys, > > I usually only read to understand and learn but sometimes I head up and > freak out with some decision. I usually read RFC and when a new one is > released it supersedes, deprecates or obsoletes another one. But,

[Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0045 (Multi-User Chat)

Version 1.31 of XEP-0045 (Multi-User Chat) has been released. Abstract: This specification defines an XMPP protocol extension for multi-user text chat, whereby multiple XMPP users can exchange messages in the context of a room or channel, similar to Internet Relay Chat (IRC). In addition to

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

Hello!8 марта 2018 г. 21:26 пользователь VanitasVitae написал:Also if we'd do that, we'd have "Message Markup" and "Message Markdown"...Yeah, but it will be really funny. Just like "more" and "less" viewers Linux! :-)With my best

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

Hello! I just want to clarify my thoughts about naming. Why do I think that "Markup" more suits for XEP-0393 and "Styling" for XEP-0394.Well known markup languages like HTML (HyperText Markup Language) and XML (eXtensible Markup Language) have markup elements mixed with text blocks to display. And

Re: [Standards] 0174 Serverless Messaging: Discovering Capabilities

On 3/8/18 9:12 AM, Denver Gingerich wrote: > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 08:47:50AM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> On 3/8/18 2:33 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: >>> I'm aware of people experimenting with this on ad-hoc networks such as >>> emergent vehicle networks. >> >> I heard about such things years

Re: [Standards] 0174 Serverless Messaging: Discovering Capabilities

On 8 March 2018 at 15:47, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 3/8/18 2:33 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: >> On 7 March 2018 at 16:26, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> On 3/5/18 3:37 PM, Christian Schudt wrote: Hi, I find the whole passage „Discovering

[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

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 names > less confusing. I'm not against this (as the author of 0393) if people find this confusing,

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

On 8 March 2018 at 15:58, Sam Whited wrote: > I thought we were specifically voting to obsolete (because this was about > wide spread security issues); the minutes do say "deprecate", but we kept > mixing up the terminology. I hate our process. > PRs to XEP-0001 welcome.

Re: [Standards] 0174 Serverless Messaging: Discovering Capabilities

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 08:47:50AM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 3/8/18 2:33 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > > I'm aware of people experimenting with this on ad-hoc networks such as > > emergent vehicle networks. > > I heard about such things years ago, too. Are those active projects? I can't

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

Hello! 08.03.2018, 19:03, "Sam Whited" :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 names less confusing.I'm not against this (as the

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

On 8 March 2018 at 16:18, Kozlov Konstantin 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 widely deployed clients. I was considering suggesting a Last Call at this point. Dave.

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

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 other suggestion, because we'd be naming it "markdown" even though it's not markdown

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

Hello! 08.03.2018, 19:20, "Dave Cridland" :On 8 March 2018 at 16:18, Kozlov Konstantin 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 widelydeployed clients.Yeah,

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

Also if we'd do that, we'd have "Message Markup" and "Message Markdown"... Am 8. März 2018 17:23:32 MEZ schrieb Sam Whited : >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

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

Hello! 08.03.2018, 19:24, "Sam Whited" :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 other suggestion, because we'd be

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

On Thu, Mar 8, 2018, at 10:26, Kozlov Konstantin wrote: > Yes, maybe. It was just an example. Indeed. I'm okay with renaming if others agree that "styling" is confusing for some reason, but only if someone comes up with a name that expresses the intent clearer. "Message Markup", or

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

On Donnerstag, 8. März 2018 17:18:02 CET Kozlov Konstantin wrote: > Hello! > > 08.03.2018, 19:03, "Sam Whited" : > 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

Re: [Standards] 0174 Serverless Messaging: Discovering Capabilities

On 3/8/18 2:33 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > On 7 March 2018 at 16:26, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> 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

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

I thought we were specifically voting to obsolete (because this was about wide spread security issues); the minutes do say "deprecate", but we kept mixing up the terminology. I hate our process. Can other council members weigh in with what they thought we were doing? —Sam On Thu, Mar 8, 2018,