Logs for jdev@conference.jabber.org
[00:12:53] * Tester joined the chat.
[00:14:09] * Flow left the chat.
[00:14:56] * Tester left the chat.
[00:42:32] * boothj5 left the chat.
[00:56:52] * Lance left the chat.
[00:56:53] * Lance joined the chat.
[00:58:54] * Philonous left the chat.
[01:13:48] * Lance left the chat.
[01:31:28] * Lance joined the chat.
[01:33:34] * tato joined the chat.
[01:48:55] * Lance left the chat.
[02:02:33] * jcea left the chat.
[02:16:55] * Florob left the chat.
[02:23:35] * tato left the chat.
[02:44:26] * MattJ_ left the chat.
[03:11:59] * Tobias joined the chat.
[03:15:58] * Tobias left the chat.
[03:16:22] * bear left the chat.
[03:16:25] * bear joined the chat.
[04:59:59] * bear left the chat.
[05:00:13] * bear joined the chat.
[05:11:31] * deryni left the chat.
[06:18:19] * Alex joined the chat.
[06:24:38] * Alex left the chat.
[06:32:36] * bear left the chat.
[06:49:16] * Asterix joined the chat.
[06:58:04] * Tobias left the chat.
[07:11:34] * ermine joined the chat.
[07:15:45] * n123 joined the chat.
[07:16:04] * n123 left the chat.
[07:16:31] * Lance joined the chat.
[07:17:41] <> Tobias: will look into the logs. We do generate them, it's just that they don't yet end up on the web hosting machine.
[07:19:22] * Asterix left the chat.
[07:21:38] * timothee.jaussoin joined the chat.
[07:36:42] <> Still some issues with the logs, will look at it later today.
[07:37:01] <> (the nicks are missing from the lines, I guess you can consider that to be an issue ;-))
[07:44:03] * Tobias joined the chat.
[07:47:33] <> edwinm, thanks
[07:59:32] * Asterix joined the chat.
[08:14:27] * Alex joined the chat.
[08:30:44] * timothee.jaussoin left the chat.
[08:53:26] * KevWalke joined the chat.
[09:12:50] * tato joined the chat.
[09:25:36] * Lloyd joined the chat.
[10:18:01] <> does anybody know whether tigase has a MUC? or community mailing list or so?
[10:18:22] <> all i found was a web forum
[10:19:42] <> you could try contacting wojtek@tigase.org, but I'm sure I've been in one at some point
[10:20:42] <> i've tried discoing tigase.org with no success :)
[10:21:19] <> i'll bug artur later when he's available again
[10:23:22] * Flow joined the chat.
[10:39:22] * KevWalke left the chat.
[10:57:59] * tato left the chat.
[11:02:27] * Philonous joined the chat.
[11:07:13] * jabberjocke joined the chat.
[11:24:10] * deryni joined the chat.
[11:52:23] * jcea joined the chat.
[11:57:08] * Lance left the chat.
[11:58:08] * Asterix left the chat.
[11:59:51] * Asterix joined the chat.
[12:04:52] <> .
[12:11:09] <> :
[12:30:11] * Florob joined the chat.
[13:23:22] * Flow left the chat.
[13:40:59] * Flow joined the chat.
[13:41:19] * tato joined the chat.
[13:41:36] * Flow left the chat.
[13:46:36] * deryni left the chat.
[13:53:24] * naw joined the chat.
[14:16:24] * Ge0rG joined the chat.
[14:34:50] * deryni joined the chat.
[14:42:48] * naw left the chat.
[14:48:50] * jabberjocke joined the chat.
[14:48:50] * jabberjocke left the chat.
[14:53:02] <> What is meant by "entity"? The RFC uses the term alot but never defines it. From the context I would guess it's either "server
or client" or "That which a full JID refers to".
[14:55:02] <> It means it in the normal sense of the word. A distinct thing.
[14:55:09] <> So yes, a server, client, component, etc.
[14:58:17] <> For example XEP0030 specifies that "Every entity MUST have at least one identity, and every entity MUST support at least the
'http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#info'". Later in example 7 a conference room is queried and doesn't advertise support for
'http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#info'. Can I infer that a conference room is not an entity?
[15:00:28] <> Well, in example 8, a query to a connected user doesn't return support for #info, either. So my next guess is that the examples
are wrong. Am I missing something?
[15:07:15] <> Philonous, No, you aren't. The examples being wrong is the conclusion I would draw too
[15:13:27] <> As a counterpoint, what's the point in advertising support for disco#info?
[15:14:06] <> Are you going to disco them to find out if they support it before you disco them? :)
[15:19:01] <> Kev, As a counterpoint to what? You MUST include it, the examples don't => The examples are wrong (or non-consistent if you
prefer)
[15:19:45] <> The fact that it's a rather nonsensical MUST requirement seems separate from that to me ;)
[15:21:02] <> Does it say it must advertise support, or just it must support it?
[15:23:04] <> «The result MUST contain a <query/> element qualified by the 'http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#info' namespace, which in turn
contains one or more <identity/> elements and one or more <feature/> elements. (Note: Every entity MUST have at least one
identity, and every entity MUST support at least the 'http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#info' feature…» which I would interpret
as include a <feature/> element with that var attribute
[15:24:17] <> The way I read that, is that you should be able to ask any entity for disco#info, not that it should list it as a feature.
The feature appears to be implied, because it is a must.
[15:24:35] <> Hmpf, slowness of my network again...
[15:27:25] <> edwinm: example 2 does include it
[15:28:09] <> Kev: I didn't write the XEP, I'm merely trying to implement it
[15:28:36] <> Kev: including #info is indeed silly. Answering to the query is ample evidence that #info is supported.
[15:29:56] <> Kev: But maybe it's a point of principle that it should be included so it's a complete set of supported features. But that's
just conjecture, of course.
[15:30:30] <> I agree that the natural reading certainly lends itself to 'MUST include' though as being discussed that is clearly silly
and, somewhat technically, not what the doc says.
[15:30:56] <> FWIW example 6 even breaks the requirement that there has to be at least one <feature/> element.
[15:31:01] <> If you're implementing, I'd include it.
[15:31:24] <> I wouldn't rely on finding it (not that I can think of any situation in which you might).
[15:31:30] <> deryni: What is the alternative reading? That every XMPP entity must support an XEP because otherwise it woudln't support
the XEP?
[15:32:07] <> Florob: It says it must include one identity, not one feature
[15:32:37] <> "which in turn contains one or more <identity/> elements and *one or more <feature/> elements*."
[15:33:23] <> Kev: I would, but the next question is, do I have to include it for every node or just when the node attribute is omitted?
[15:33:44] <> Florob: Of course, sorry
[15:44:09] * Florob left the chat.
[15:47:56] <> Philonous: Hm? That the MUST indicates inclusion of the item versus indicates support for it. (Akin to the supports/deploys
discussions back around the last xmpp RFC cycle.) And yes, the latter reading is also somewhat silly.
[15:53:58] <> I think the example should include it, FWIW, I'm not arguing otherwise.
[15:54:11] <> Just that it doesn't matter much in the wild.
[15:58:12] <> Agreed.
[16:00:05] <> .
[16:00:43] <> (Sorry for the lag in here, we're suffering an XMPP DDoS at the moment)
[16:11:10] <> I've decided to just always include it. It seems to be the best interpretation and likely to cause the least surprise. Thanks
for the help.
[16:13:53] * Alex left the chat.
[17:08:28] * Neustradamus joined the chat.
[17:16:27] * stpeter joined the chat.
[17:17:19] * Neustradamus joined the chat.
[17:19:14] * Asterix joined the chat.
[17:21:30] * edwinm joined the chat.
[17:21:50] * whatever joined the chat.
[17:22:03] * Philonous joined the chat.
[17:22:22] * edwinm left the chat.
[17:22:25] * edwinm joined the chat.
[17:24:28] * Lance joined the chat.
[17:29:40] * jcea joined the chat.
[17:46:47] * xnyhps joined the chat.
[17:49:34] * MattJ joined the chat.
[17:51:24] * bear joined the chat.
[17:57:09] * scippio joined the chat.
[17:57:22] <> Yay
[17:59:46] * Kev joined the chat.
[18:00:36] <> MattJ: time to celebrate?
[18:00:51] <> The room is accessible again :)
[18:00:59] <> yeah
[18:03:52] * edwinm left the chat.
[18:05:28] * edwinm joined the chat.
[18:07:25] * Alex joined the chat.
[18:10:48] * KevWalke joined the chat.
[18:13:15] * Link Mauve joined the chat.
[18:31:43] * KevWalke left the chat.
[18:36:18] * tato joined the chat.
[18:48:32] * Lance left the chat.
[18:48:33] * Lance joined the chat.
[18:50:58] * McKael joined the chat.
[18:55:46] * Tobias joined the chat.
[19:01:01] * Florob joined the chat.
[19:01:57] * Tobias left the chat.
[19:04:46] * naw joined the chat.
[19:05:26] * mojomx joined the chat.
[19:09:35] * mojomx left the chat.
[19:15:35] * tato left the chat.
[19:34:56] * KevWalke joined the chat.
[19:50:47] * Tobias joined the chat.
[20:16:18] * Lance left the chat.
[20:20:36] * Florob left the chat.
[20:30:08] * Flow joined the chat.
[20:47:03] * Lance joined the chat.
[20:59:09] * Florob joined the chat.
[21:30:15] * ThurahT joined the chat.
[21:35:36] * Tobias left the chat.
[21:39:26] * Tobias joined the chat.
[21:59:08] * stpeter left the chat.
[22:13:33] * Asterix left the chat.
[22:14:22] * naw left the chat.
[22:22:12] * Tobias left the chat.
[22:22:22] * just for test joined the chat.
[22:24:01] * Tobias joined the chat.
[22:24:06] * just for test left the chat.
[22:27:37] * Florob left the chat.
[22:28:45] * louiz’ joined the chat.
[22:28:53] <> oh
[22:28:56] <> the irony
[22:29:00] <> I was saying:
[22:29:05] <> “I’m still unsuccessfully looking for methods to check if we (as a client) are still in a MUC room”
[22:29:29] <> And it appears I wasn’t in there, because the server actually shut(shot?)down earlier
[22:29:47] <> proving that I really need that…
[22:30:15] * Flow left the chat.
[22:32:18] <> louiz’:
[22:32:50] <> Thanks, do that regularly and we’re done.
[22:33:39] <> that's why you left jabber.j.org. I miss that.
[22:34:19] <> jabber.j.org ? :o
[22:34:34] <> oh, s/./@
[22:34:38] <> or jabber@c.j.org ?
[22:35:16] <> no jabber.org. Every random dude used to highlight you
[22:35:51] * Lance left the chat.
[22:35:52] * Lance joined the chat.
[22:36:10] <> Indeed. Except that jabber@jabber.org is not a room, jabber@conference.jabber.org is
[22:36:17] * Tobias left the chat.
[22:36:39] <> “If an occupant wants to send an IQ stanza to another user in a semi-anonymous room, the sender can direct the stanza to the
recipient's occupant JID and the service SHOULD forward the stanza to the recipient's real JID. ”
[22:36:55] <> oh, right you are. I named all my MUCs without the conference part.
[22:37:37] <> Does that mean I can rely on a ping to my self muc jid, and consider myself not-in-there if it responds an error? Or do you
know some MUC servers that do not respect that?
[22:45:00] * stpeter joined the chat.
[23:07:20] * Alex left the chat.
[23:21:34] * Florob joined the chat.
[23:36:23] * KevWalke left the chat.
[23:46:57] * bear left the chat.
[23:50:28] * Tobias joined the chat.