Good day.
I am working on a news service for XMPP, which sends messages according
to status.
When JID is offline, service should stop.
Resources
---------
As XMPP is presence oriented, it is needed to set extra measures, such
as collecting detected resources, in order to be certain that a subject
JID is indeed offline.
This measure is still tested.
Signals
-------
I am experimenting with XEP-0199: XMPP Ping as a possible mean to
confirm that an account is offline.
However, while asking for a pong signal from a full JID (JID with a
resource) returns an empty respond, asking for a pong signal appear to
always to work when querying a bare JID (JID without a resource).
PONG: sch(a)pimux.de/gajim.TN7Y65AS None
PONG: sch(a)pimux.de 0.09115195274353027
PONG: sch(a)pimux.de/gajim.TN7Y65AS None
PONG: sch(a)pimux.de 0.10207772254943848
My expectation was to have no respond for bare JID, when there is no
connected instance to a given JID.
Please advise.
Kind reagrds,
Schimon
Good day.
I would want to ask the XSF members to reconsider XEP-0146 for a couple
of reasons.
* To educate and inform people of Ad-Hoc Commands, a feature which is
exclusive to XMPP.
* To control other clients when special situationn arises.
For several days I have a connected XMPP client instance from my Movim
instance which indicates that my JID is available, even though I deem
that it should be offline.
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0146.xml
XEP-0146: Remote Controlling Clients
Kind regards,
Schimon
Good day.
Question
========
Is it possible for XMPP clients to actively probe for presence?
JabberCard
==========
I have created JabberCard, an HTML invitation page for XMPP.
https://git.xmpp-it.net/sch/JabberCardhttps://git.0ut0f.space/doesnm/JabberCard
JabberCard is based on the module Slixmpp and is an XMPPP client.
Idea
====
Months ago, I was advised to add support for status, mood, and activity.
I think that it is a good idea.
Presence
========
However, it appears that actively probing for presence by XMPPP clients
is not specified in the standard.
According to the standard, only servers handle that task.
4.3. Presence Probes
> Presence probes SHOULD NOT be sent by a client, because in general a
> client will not need to send them since the task of gathering
> presence from a user's contacts is managed by the user's server.
> However, if a user's client generates an outbound presence probe then
> the user's server SHOULD route the probe (if the contact is at
> another server) or process the probe (if the contact is at the same
> server) and MUST NOT use its receipt of the presence probe from a
> connected client as the sole cause for returning a stanza or stream
> error to the client.
https://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6121.html#presence-probe
Is it possible for XMPP clients to actively probe for presence?
Please advise.
Kind regards,
Schimon
Good day.
I have a question concerning to preferable practice in JID recognition.
Preface
-------
I am working on an XMPP service (i.e. "bot") for both private and group
chat. I utilize Slixmpp for that task.
Slixmpp
-------
Slixmpp has a "reply" function which automatically classifies the task,
due to information which is attached to IQ Stanza.
Concern
-------
However, when the service actively sends schedule messages, it needs to
classify the given JID to which it sends a message.
Database
--------
I have recently decided to classify subscribers of the service inside a
database, which also has fields of Private, MIX, and MUC.
Disco
-----
I was wondering whether should query JID addresses using "disco" (i.e.
XEP-0030: Service Discovery), or should I utilize the database?
Utilizing "disco" is prone to errors (e.g. when server blocks another
server - displaying "recepient-unavailable" - yet contacts can still
communicate).
Conclusion
----------
Please advise.
Kind regards,
Schimon
Greetings.
Because there are lightweight implementations of IRC servers, there are
various of video games that utilize IRC as a mean to converse.
I do think, that a basic, and modular, XMPP server would be an
interesting choice to various of video games, from action games to
simulators, including FreeSO.
This, of course, would expand the user-base of XMPP, and would allow to
anyone to participate in discussions with people who are playing a
game, without the need to have that game installed.
A father plays a video game with his sons at his house, then he goes
with his daughter to a piano lesson; the father can still communicate
with his kids, whereas the kids would be able to continue to
communicate directly via the video game while playing it.
What do you think?
Kind regards,
Schimon
Hey hey,
Boring incoming:
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1407
This is draft to avoid the XSF Board accidentally approving it before the
community has had a chance to discuss.
The main change is the paragraph added in Section 6 (Discussion Process),
covering changes to the XEP during Experimental:
The XEP author incorporates the feedback by creating source control patches
> (such as Pull Requests), in line with the preferred method in &xep0143;.
> Direct changes to an Experimental XEP, such as a contributor providing a
> patch (or Pull Request on GitHub), are still the responsibility of the XEP
> author, and are only applied if the XEP author agrees. If a XEP has
> multiple authors, while agreement is sought from all authors, only those
> opinions from responsive authors are considered. If the Approving Body
> feels that the XEP author is not responsive, another author may be added
> unilaterally by the Approving Body.
This is trying to do two things:
1) Document the existing practice that the XMPP Council has followed,
whereby changes to Experimental XEPs need "agreement" (PR approval, or
similar) from the XEP Author.
2) Document the existing practice that the XMPP Council has followed.
whereby if a XEP Author isn't responsive (ie, doesn't respond to emails,
etc) the XMPP Council can add a new XEP Author.
3) Document the *new practice* that if a contribution isn't a PR, it's the
XEP Author who is responsible to turn it into one.
The rest of the changes surface and restate existing process/policy/URLs
and aren't that interesting (well, even less interesting).
There is one additional possible process deviation we should document (or
call the Process Police out, or something). Submission of a XEP, as per
XEP-0143, occurs via email tot he Editor. Is this really still the case? Or
are these now by PR? That'll need changing in XEP-0143, which I'm happy to
do if that's the case. It'd be nice to have a non-PR variant of the process
(post here?)
Dave.
Good Morning Council Members,
the next XMPP Council Meeting will take place on, Tuesday, August 5
2025 at 15:30 UTC in xmpp:council@muc.xmpp.org?join
The Agenda is as follows:
1) Roll call
2) Agenda Bashing
3) Editors update
none
4) Items for voting
a) XEP-0198: Remove leftover optional and required children in sm element
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1447
b) XEP-0167: Make ssrc attribute unsignedInt instead of generic string
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1446
5) Pending votes
none
See the spreadsheet of doom:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oAHUqBdlkobDcmfQ-YRMfZHGQLMWEdOFuEU…
6) Date of Next
7) AOB
8) Close
