https://logs.xmpp.org/council/2020-07-22?p=h#2020-07-22-39e86b9401b53a9e
1) Roll Call
100% Present: Zash, Jonas, Daniel
3% Present: Georg
0% Present: Dave
2) Agenda Bashing
No modifications.
3) Editor's Update
* Advanced XEP-0338 to Draft
4a) PR #971 (XEP-0004: Clarify field type omission for 'submit' and 'result'
form field types) versus PR #972 (XEP-0004: Clarify that 'result' forms must
have explicit field types) - https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/971 |
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/972
The author, Flow, has noted that these two PRs effectively contradict each
other.
Jonas notes that #971 seems to be only an editorial change, while #972 is a
normative change; also, that they should be discussed together, but voted on
separately (with attention to the fact that XEP-0004 is Final.)
Jonas is firmly against changing normative wording in a Final XEP, especially
with evidence of implementations already doing what the change would forbid.
Daniel would prefer #972 if XEP-0004 were Experimental - Jonas agrees.
Zash requests an explanation of the rationale behind changing normative
language. Flow explains that if one believes fields (other than text-single) in
forms of type 'form' must have always had field-type annotations then the
change to MUST is merely a clarification - Jonas isn't convinced, and expects a
stronger argument than second-guessing the authors' intended meaning - Flow
suggests reading is always a matter of 'guessing' the authors' intentions, but
the alternative interpretation would be that the fields are allowed to omit the
type annotation. Jonas agrees that the omission of types is unfortunate, but
that is the text as-written, and there is no indication that MUST was intended;
input from the authors may be able justify the replacement, but even that could
be problematic given that it's a change to a Final XEP. Zash adds that 'SHOULD'
is still a strong requirement; MattJ adds that 'SHOULD' is largely equivalent
to 'MUST' in most cases.
Jonas would like to get to voting at some point today, so further discussion
will have to continue elsewhere. If Council votes to accept both PRs then the
Editor shall ask for a way to resolve the conflict.
4a i) PR #972 (XEP-0004: Clarify that 'result' forms must have explicit field
types) - https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/972
Zash: [on-list]
Jonas: -1 (changes a strongly-worded RFC 2119 business rule without sufficient
rationale and while evidence exists of behaviour which would then be
non-compliant)
Daniel: -1 (not significant enough to change the normative language of a final
xep)
Georg: [pending]
Dave: [pending]
4a ii) PR #971 (XEP-0004: Clarify field type omission for 'submit' and 'result'
form field types) - https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/972
Jonas: [on-list]
Zash: [on-list]
Daniel: [on-list]
Georg: [pending]
Dave: [pending]
4b) PR #969 (XEP-0045 v1.33.0) - https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/969
Jonas: +1
Zash: +1
Daniel: +1
Georg: [pending]
Dave: [pending]
5) Pending Votes
Three for Dave, expiring today.
6) Date of Next
2020-07-29 1500 UTC
7) AOB
With #972 being rejected, Flow assumes that nobody wants the requirement for
'result' forms to carry type annotations - Jonas doesn't want the requirement
for 'form' forms because it's already explicitly written as a SHOULD; and it
currently says MAY for 'result' forms, so raising that to MUST would probably
cause issues for new receiving implementations. Flow still thinks the intention
was for a MUST, but can see how it could be interpreted otherwise.
Zash notes that if the sender is confident that the form recipient knows the
'schema' (regardless of form type) then the metadata is redundant and thus okay
to leave out.
8) Close
Jonas thanks everyone and apologises for being late - will try to remember to
set an alarm the next time he's on vacation.
___
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
___
