[Standards] Stamping on one's head Re: Fwd: Minutes 20121011

[Andreas Kuckartz]

 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.
...
[15:19:47] ralphm To be more blunt. I'm a solid -1 on anything adding
stuff
[15:19:55] ralphm like rdfa

http://logs.xmpp.org/council/121011/

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?

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.

Cheers,
Andreas

Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0308 (Last Message Correction)

[Mark Rejhon]

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Gunnar Hellström 
gunnar.hellst...@omnitor.se wrote:

 On 2012-10-13 04:24, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

 I know that Kev has been quite busy, but he's quire reliable and I'm
 sure he will incorporate the Last Call feedback as he has promised to do.

 Was there any last call conclusion?
 The feedback was so varied,
 some saying that the feature was essential, some saying that it should not
 be allowed,
 some requiring that the edited message shall be shown last with
 changemarks, some accepting the change made in place.
 Edit any versus strictly edit last was also discussed.

 My conclusions are:
 1. The feature will be allowed. ( deduced from your answer that Kev is
 asked do do an update )
 2. How edits are presented to the receiving user is out of scope, but a
 recommendation to make it clearly displayed that there was an edit will be
 included.
 3. Edit any previous will be included. It is up to the transmitter to use
 it or not. Receivers should be prepared to act on editing any previous.


This is my preference as well, though I seemed to recall that Kevin was
going to keep it as is, for editing just the last message.   Regardless,
the XEP-0301 protocol will be compatible with either method.

As for my XEP-0301 updates, keep tuned.  Workload and certain priorities
has increased as of late, but I will be catching up.   I know that the U.S.
access board has inquired asking about when it'll be ready.

Thanks,
Mark Rejhon