On 2012-10-13 09:37, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
4) Any other business
Brief discussion of XEP 71, to continue on standards list.
This made me curious and I belong to those who reads conference minutes.
And to my astonishment I found this:
[15:18:46] <stpeter> I have one AOB.... XEP-0071 and how to come to
agreement on structured elements vs. stylistic presentation, but I
suppose I'll just post to the list about that
[15:18:50] <Kev> I started and then got distracted, as so often happens.
[15:18:57] <ralphm> I wish to stamp that on the head of everyone
involved the slightest in anything related to publishing web pages
[15:19:23] <Kev> stpeter: I think at this stage the answer is "We don't
substantially change the XEP".
[15:19:34] <Kev> But yes, that discussion can happen on-list.
I'm sorry you got caught in a misinterpretation of the flow of that
discussion, of which this snippet is incomplete. My statement was
related to what I wrote directly above that, concerning the unneeded
port number added to the URL of our wiki and that cool URLs don't
change. It may be worded strongly, but in that context I stand by it.
I'd like to note that chat logs like don't convey the relation between
messages and messages may be out of order due to multiple people typing
at the same time. Also it may involve latency issues due to network
connectivity or painful on-screen keyboards on phones while in transit.
Not to mention attempts at humor or sarcasm.
Full logs can be found here at our archive, with the start of the thing
I responded to pointed to by the time-based anchor:
<http://logs.xmpp.org/council/121011/#15:16:35>
...
[15:19:47] <ralphm> To be more blunt. I'm a solid -1 on anything adding
stuff
[15:19:55] <ralphm> like rdfa
This was a direct response to Kevin's remark:
> [15:19:23] <Kev> stpeter: I think at this stage the answer is "We
don't substantially change the XEP".
According to http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xmpp-council/ ralphm is
currently a member of the XMPP Council.
Can someone please let me know if he has a veto right there?
Like Kevin and Peter already mentioned I don't agree with changing this
XEP this late in the game. In practice we see that implementations
already have security issues because they pass the XHTML directly to a
generic HTML rendering engine, without properly filtering elements and
(style) attributes that are not included in this profile.
We have found that people tend to implement specifications by example,
and then maybe read the surrounding prose. I know I have sometimes. Even
though existing implementations should ignore the RFDa if they implement
the current version of the spec, I am afraid they don't, and I believe
that allowing more at this stage will promote implementations to not
filter at all.
> If that is the case there would be no reason for me to spend a minute
> more on finding a reasonable way to add RDFa to XEP-0071. I generally
> do not participate in discussions with a predetermined outcome.
I encourage any proposals to add or amend the specifications published
by the XSF and generally tend to accept any proposed XEP as experimental
because I believe it encourages discussing its merits. However, as
council member I am tasked to take this discussion as input and then
make a judgment call on advancing specifications in our process.
In this specific example, you engaged in discussing the addition of RDFa
to XEP-0071 and I responded at length on this list [1], as did others.
To conclude, I believe we should not add anything to XEP-0071 in
general, and think that conveying RFD triples in messages can done
without embedding it in this XHTML profile specifically.
That said, I do appreciate your input, even though I may disagree on
this point. I'd sincerely regret it if you are discouraged by this and
would still like to support any efforts to convey RDF triplets in
another way.
Thank you for bringing this up.
[1] <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2012-October/026850.html>
--
ralphm
