(this includes my previous votes for the sake of completeness) * Tedd Sterr <[email protected]> [2018-11-15 20:41]: > http://logs.xmpp.org/council/2018-11-14/#16:01:26 > > 3) Advance XEP-0357 (Push Notifications) to DRAFT - > https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0357.html
(still) -1 (high priority topic hasn't been addressed; but really liked the stripped stanza proposal) > 4) Advance XEP-0359 (Unique and Stable Stanza IDs) to DRAFT - > https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0359.html (still) -1 until this is addressed: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2018-November/035455.html > 5) PR #692 - XEP-0060: correct "entity" to "<subscription/>" - > https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/692 +1 > 6) PR #693 - XEP-0060: Remove unused 'node' attribute on pubsub#event item - > https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/693 +1: I was shortly confused about <item>s with @node in Example 10 and 12, but those turned out to be in the disco#items namespace, so all is well! > 7) PR #715 - XEP-0045: Add missing disco#info feature to example 4, 9, 78 and > 218 - https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/715 +0: I think that the primary goal of examples is to convey the structure of the actual protocol at hand, and adding all mandatory boilerplate distracts from that goal. However, I anticipate the stack-overflow-oriented generation to just copy&paste from examples, thus leading to bad implementation. I'm torn between those two positions and thus vote +0. > 8) PR #716 - XEP-0030: Clarify 'disco#info' feature in 'disco#info' responses > - https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/716 -1, but we should add the Note about examples not being normative. Georg
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
