Logs for jdev

Show join/part/nick changes:

[05:32:34] * teo1 left the chat.
[05:32:35] * teo1 joined the chat.
[05:57:03] * justin joined the chat.
[05:58:12] <justin> does it make sense to add more affiliation types to muc in order to establish a hierarchical administration (e.g. owners/admins of groups of rooms, or of the entire muc domain) ?
[05:59:02] <justin> if not, i'd be curious of what a good approach is. and i'm also interested to know what others have done about this (if anything)
[06:06:50] * teo1 left the chat.
[06:06:58] * teo1 joined the chat.
[06:08:38] * mlundblad_laptop joined the chat.
[06:30:51] * bear left the chat.
[06:34:11] * smoku left the chat.
[06:46:18] * teo1 left the chat.
[06:46:20] * teo1 joined the chat.
[06:47:52] * julm joined the chat.
[06:48:08] * julm left the chat.
[06:56:40] * teo1 left the chat.
[06:57:35] * teo1 joined the chat.
[06:59:18] * teo1 left the chat.
[07:00:04] * teo1 joined the chat.
[07:08:25] * justin left the chat.
[07:21:42] * Alex joined the chat.
[07:38:00] * nabatt joined the chat.
[07:38:54] * ermine joined the chat.
[07:44:54] * Guus joined the chat.
[07:48:52] * luca tagliaferri joined the chat.
[07:56:11] * Tobias joined the chat.
[08:23:04] * petermount joined the chat.
[08:31:23] * smoku joined the chat.
[08:40:15] * Lance left the chat.
[08:47:41] <louiz’> Well, it's just non-standard, and client won't understand your new affiliations…
[09:15:09] * Hermitifier joined the chat.
[09:39:40] * petermount joined the chat.
[09:41:56] * elmex joined the chat.
[09:44:37] * alfeberlin joined the chat.
[09:44:46] * alfeberlin left the chat.
[09:44:47] * SJrX joined the chat.
[09:45:05] * Guus joined the chat.
[09:49:00] * mlundblad_laptop joined the chat.
[09:52:33] * Alex joined the chat.
[09:58:22] * smoku joined the chat.
[10:05:22] * Treebilou joined the chat.
[10:29:18] * Treebilou left the chat.
[10:46:28] * dwd joined the chat.
[11:04:12] * Neustradamus joined the chat.
[11:23:04] * teo1 joined the chat.
[11:41:22] * Kev joined the chat.
[11:58:10] * Treebilou joined the chat.
[12:06:04] * julm joined the chat.
[12:06:14] * julm left the chat.
[12:08:22] * Lance joined the chat.
[12:08:27] * Lance left the chat.
[12:15:22] <Kev> !ping
[12:15:41] * Kanchil joined the chat.
[12:22:02] <dwd> !ping
[12:22:02] <Kanchil> dwd: pong
[12:22:20] <dwd> So, Kanchil. DO you know about [xep 0288] and things yet?
[12:22:21] <Kanchil> dwd: XEP-0288: Bidirectional Server-to-Server Connections is Standards Track (Experimental, 2010-10-04) See: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0288.html
[12:22:29] <dwd> Kanchil, Good lad.
[12:22:47] * tofu joined the chat.
[12:29:10] * louiz’ joined the chat.
[12:31:11] * Alex left the chat.
[12:39:57] * nabatt joined the chat.
[12:47:37] * deryni joined the chat.
[12:49:07] * scippio joined the chat.
[12:53:13] * Asterix joined the chat.
[13:17:22] * zanchin joined the chat.
[13:29:27] * smoku left the chat.
[13:43:41] * smoku joined the chat.
[13:44:01] * SJrX left the chat.
[14:00:28] * lance joined the chat.
[14:00:29] * lance left the chat.
[14:00:37] * lance joined the chat.
[14:00:37] * lance left the chat.
[14:02:37] * lance joined the chat.
[14:07:21] * smoku left the chat.
[14:08:15] * smoku joined the chat.
[14:20:50] * Zash joined the chat.
[14:30:59] * Zash left the chat.
[14:31:05] * Zash joined the chat.
[14:32:42] * MattJ joined the chat.
[14:38:46] * Tobias joined the chat.
[14:52:49] * mlundblad_laptop left the chat.
[14:52:55] * nabatt left the chat.
[14:54:14] * Zash left the chat.
[15:02:43] * smoku left the chat.
[15:41:29] * stpeter joined the chat.
[15:58:14] * Zash joined the chat.
[16:00:54] * deryni left the chat.
[16:23:29] * SJrX joined the chat.
[16:24:59] * scippio left the chat.
[16:32:49] * SJrX left the chat.
[16:32:53] * SJrX joined the chat.
[16:42:57] * justin joined the chat.
[16:52:03] * dwd-glider joined the chat.
[16:52:38] * SJrX left the chat.
[16:53:41] <dwd-glider> I'm playing with Glider. Does MUC and Ad-Hoc, which is fun.
[16:53:46] * petermount left the chat.
[16:54:01] <stpeter> I need to check that out
[16:54:15] <stpeter> but I think I need to upgrade the OS on my BlackBerry first
[16:57:39] <dwd-glider> Blackberry? Ew! The text entry on Glider is a bit odd - goes full-screen on my E71. But otherwise, nice so far.
[16:57:59] <stpeter> dwd-glider: corporate issue :P
[16:58:25] * SJrX joined the chat.
[16:59:50] * Guus left the chat.
[17:12:46] * dwd-glider left the chat.
[17:28:54] * SJrX left the chat.
[17:45:33] * teo1 left the chat.
[17:45:34] * teo1 joined the chat.
[17:51:55] * johnny joined the chat.
[18:00:26] * lance left the chat.
[18:02:35] * MattJ left the chat.
[18:02:39] * MattJ joined the chat.
[18:08:08] * Florob joined the chat.
[18:12:30] * MattJ left the chat.
[18:12:40] * MattJ joined the chat.
[18:23:15] * hawke joined the chat.
[18:30:58] * dax joined the chat.
[18:34:26] * smoku joined the chat.
[19:02:09] * hawke left the chat.
[19:32:52] * dax left the chat.
[19:36:54] * lastsky joined the chat.
[20:03:40] * Zash left the chat.
[20:05:45] * Zash joined the chat.
[20:21:55] * bear joined the chat.
[20:34:58] <justin> dwd: do you mean an extension element is needed for scope only because it isn't a standard attribute of muc?
[20:35:41] <Kev> You shouldn't really extend the MUC namespace.
[20:36:04] <Kev> So ideally you just throw the scope in a new namespaced element and you're done.
[20:36:32] <Kev> But you could signal support for the MUC namespaced extensions in your join stanza instead.
[20:36:48] <justin> right, just making sure
[20:38:20] <justin> i suggested it the way i did, because that's how we'd probably extend MUC itself if there was interest in standardization
[20:38:36] <justin> but of course for our own application, i'd namespace things properly
[20:38:45] <Kev> I disagree - if we wanted a standardised extension, we'd create a new XEP for it.
[20:38:49] <Kev> And just have a very short XEP.
[20:39:02] <Kev> I feel quite strongly that we shouldn't shoehorn anything new into 45.
[20:40:04] <MattJ> +1000000
[20:40:21] <MattJ> Except for fixes :)
[20:40:34] <stpeter> yeah, fixes, sigh
[20:40:59] <stpeter> /me glances at the pile of XEP-0045 printed pages on his desk, filled with red pen marks
[20:41:56] <dwd> stpeter, Fax them here, I'll write it up. Well, s/Fax/scan-and-send/
[20:42:44] <stpeter> oh I couldn't do that
[20:43:30] <dwd> Too many doodles? Or just that you've covered the margins in "Dave Cridland Must Die!" stuff?
[20:46:00] <Tobias> heh :D
[20:48:21] <justin> Kev: i think it really depends on what is being proposed. but if scope is a fringe feature, then sure
[20:48:33] <Kev> I don't think it does, really.
[20:48:47] <Kev> Even if it's a mainstream feature, I don't think 45 should be extended at this point.
[20:49:16] <Kev> Extra XEPs for this stuff do no harm, and cramming stuff into 45 does.
[20:50:28] <stpeter> +1
[21:03:17] <dwd> FWIW, I'd be happy to see a generalized "domain-wide affiliations" XEP, and things like this live there.
[21:04:30] <Kev> Right.
[21:06:14] <MattJ> Hats
[21:07:34] <Zash> Caps
[21:08:04] <MattJ> In that, a super hat could apply to a given entity and all its "descendants", those being MUCs on a MUC domain
[21:08:12] <dwd> MattJ, Hats are overengineered. Horribly so.
[21:08:28] <Kev> How can something that's never been defined be overengineered?
[21:08:38] <MattJ> I find it more painful to see access control implemented in so many different ways in every new XEP
[21:08:50] <MattJ> and all of them imperfect
[21:08:59] <dwd> MattJ, Largely, we reuse affiliations all the time. ANd they're not bad at all.
[21:09:02] <Kev> All I understood hats to be was a tag you could put on a person to say "They have this property", which seems to be what's desired.
[21:09:17] <MattJ> dwd, sure, and we just want to standardise that
[21:09:33] <MattJ> "this JID has this relation to this JID"
[21:09:39] <MattJ> or node :_
[21:09:40] <MattJ> *:)
[21:10:17] <MattJ> the only complicated part is that the relationships can be extended
[21:10:18] <dwd> I understood hats to be quite similar to X.500 ACI ruleset entries.
[21:11:09] <dwd> Except that a hat was actually a right, in effect, and you could define them on the fly, and define (somehow) rules to grant people hats which might or might last beyond a session.
[21:11:26] <MattJ> Now you're overengineering it ;)
[21:11:45] <dwd> Mostly, I thought hats wwere an interesting theoretical discussion to have in Brussels while we waited until it was socially acceptable to go for beer.
[21:12:02] <MattJ> Yes, it hinges on the definition of hat, but I reckon it's a bundle of rights
[21:12:23] <dwd> MattJ, No... Definitely there was discussion of more than one hat being worn at once.
[21:12:26] <MattJ> the right to kick people, the right to ban people, not the right to give admin hats to people
[21:12:36] <MattJ> an owner hat does allow the latter
[21:12:50] <MattJ> and the Telepathy folk want fine-grained rights definitions too
[21:13:13] <MattJ> In that they don't know whether they are allowed to change the topic without trying, because it depends on room config
[21:13:35] <MattJ> whereas if they knew what hat they were wearing, they could query the rights of the hat
[21:13:57] <dwd> MattJ, I believe that disco#info tells you if participants can. Certainly that's the case for some things.
[21:13:58] <MattJ> (or they would just know, since it would be a hat with caps...)
[21:16:31] <MattJ> /me removes his available hat and disappears
[21:16:34] <dwd> MattJ, Okay, so XEP-0045 disco#info stuff doesn't tell you.
[21:17:08] <dwd> MattJ, But I think there's much easier ways of telling a user what their rights are than throwing out affiliations and roles and starting over.
[21:34:19] * Tobias left the chat.
[21:50:07] * lastsky left the chat.
[21:55:35] * waqas joined the chat.
[21:59:28] <stpeter> bbl
[22:00:22] * stpeter left the chat.
[22:18:40] * Link Mauve joined the chat.
[22:46:08] * johnny left the chat.
[23:27:52] * johnny joined the chat.
[23:30:19] * smoku left the chat.
[23:30:52] * smoku joined the chat.