On Thu May 14, 2020 at 8:56 PM CEST, Tedd Sterr wrote:
> 4) PR #943 - XEP-0068: Clarify FORM_TYPE field type on 'submit' type
> forms =
> - https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/943
> Jonas notes this is re-do of PR #913 after it was vetoed by Dave [1].
> Jonas suggests the following addition - '=85as t
Am So., 10. Mai 2020 um 14:35 Uhr schrieb Florian Schmaus :
>
>
>
> EXTERNAL
> SCRAM-SHA-1-PLUS
> PLAIN
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> would be sufficient for the client to now what do to. Even if
> 'tls-exporter' is SCRAM specific, because its specification then surel
Am Di., 12. Mai 2020 um 19:04 Uhr schrieb Tedd Sterr :
>
> https://logs.xmpp.org/council/2020-05-06?p=h#2020-05-06-203d250e68ba702f
>
> 1) Roll Call
> Present: Jonas, Zash, Daniel, Georg
> Apologies: Dave
>
> 2) Agenda Bashing
> Nothing to add/modify.
>
> 3) Editor's Update
> * Expired calls:
> -
> 4) PR #943 - XEP-0068: Clarify FORM_TYPE field type on 'submit' type forms -
> https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/943
> Jonas notes this is re-do of PR #913 after it was vetoed by Dave [1].
> Jonas suggests the following addition - '…as the FORM_TYPE field with the
> special meaning defined herei
Hi everyone,
The next XMPP Council Meeting will take place on 2020-05-20 at 15:00Z in
xmpp:coun...@muc.xmpp.org?join. Everyone is welcome to join and add to the
discussions.
This agenda is composed from:
- Editor notifications to standards@
- xsf/xeps GitHub PRs marked as Needs Council
- Sugge
On Sun, 10 May 2020 at 14:43, Sam Whited wrote:
> > I'd be fine with putting channel bindings alongside mechanisms, just
> > not pretending they are mechanisms.
>
> I still don't see why it bothers anyone. We already do this with "-
> PLUS", so what is wrong with adding another suffix? So far it'
Hello! 12.05.2020, 22:36, "Jonas Schäfer (XSF Editor)" :This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments onXEP-0393.Title: Message StylingAbstract:This specification defines a formatted text syntax for use in instantmessages with simple text styling.URL: https://xmpp
On Tue, 12 May 2020 at 18:39, Sam Whited wrote:
> No one has indicated why they think this is a bad thing yet.
They are not mechanisms, but pretend to be, thus breaking the semantics of
what that element is intended to contain.
> It seems
> fine to me. As I said, these mechanisms aren't full