On Fri, Dec 8, 2017, at 09:39, Edwin Mons wrote:
> On 08-12-17 16:03, Sam Whited wrote:
> The last bit isn't exactly true. A resourcepart is an OpaqueString
> profile of the FreeformClass. 7622 § 3.4.1 suggests that applications
> might use a narrower definition, but that's not enforced by either
On 08-12-17 16:03, Sam Whited wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017, at 08:17, Marcel Waldvogel wrote:
>> As JIDs are supposed to be case-preserving, I would expect several
>> implementations do not downcase them first.
> This is incorrect. Per RFC 7622 the localpart of a JID uses the
> UsernameCaseMapped p
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017, at 08:17, Marcel Waldvogel wrote:
> As JIDs are supposed to be case-preserving, I would expect several
> implementations do not downcase them first.
This is incorrect. Per RFC 7622 the localpart of a JID uses the
UsernameCaseMapped profile of PRECIS defined in RFC 8265 which r
Jonas,
comparison can be case-insensitively and (probably also)
normalization-insensitively without having to case-/normalization-convert both
identifiers first. An example is strcasecmp() [1].
As JIDs are supposed to be case-preserving, I would expect several
implementations do not downcase t
On Freitag, 8. Dezember 2017 10:00:33 CET Marcel Waldvogel wrote:
> I came upon one more ambiguity in the "same JID, different hash/color"
> domain
> First, what I already mentioned, is case: The JID must be mapped to a
> consistent case; I would suggest lower.
Isn’t that mandated anyways by RFC 7
I came upon one more ambiguity in the "same JID, different hash/color"
domain
First, what I already mentioned, is case: The JID must be mapped to a
consistent case; I would suggest lower.
Second, the hash also depends on the Normalization Form applied. I
would suggest NFC, which is recommended anyw
* Jonas Wielicki [2017-11-24 09:13]:
> So I now tend to use the nickname instead of the JID in MUCs. Does anyone
> have
> objections?
My first gut feeling was to only use the bare JID in non-anon MUCs (as
opposed to "when it's known"), which would solve most of the consistency
problems - except
Related issue: JIDs are case-preserving, but case-insensitive. So the
coloring should also be case-insensitive. Therefore, we probably need
to normalize/downcase/similar the JIDs.
Does the same apply to Nicks as well?
On Fri, 2017-11-24 at 09:11 +0100, Jonas Wielicki wrote:
> On Montag, 20. Novembe
On Montag, 20. November 2017 09:09:48 CET Maxime Buquet wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> A few remarks regarding 0392 after having it implemented in poezio,
> thanks to Jonas.
>
> Using JIDs as the source for the hash brings at least an issue to me in
> MUCs. You'll see the same person in different colors
On Montag, 20. November 2017 09:09:48 CET Maxime Buquet wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> A few remarks regarding 0392 after having it implemented in poezio,
> thanks to Jonas.
>
> Using JIDs as the source for the hash brings at least an issue to me in
> MUCs. You'll see the same person in different colors
Hi there,
A few remarks regarding 0392 after having it implemented in poezio,
thanks to Jonas.
Using JIDs as the source for the hash brings at least an issue to me in MUCs.
You'll see the same person in different colors depending on what room
you're looking at.
Another point I feel about but I d
11 matches
Mail list logo
