Good day.
Please create "development" (or "jdev") and "general" (or "talk")
mailing-lists.
I sense that these are required.
DEVELOPMENT
-----------
I have many questions about XMPP development and concerns that are
indirectly related to XMPP.
I urgently need to have a mailing-list for development, as most of my
questions aer not directly related to standard.
GENERAL
-------
A general mailing-list be useful to converse of any other concern,
including welcoming people who have interest in XMPP, of any sort.
Kind regards,
Schimon
Hi,
Section 8.5.4 provides a summary of earlier sections. It uses the term
"active resource" twice. This term is not used in any of the earlier
sections.
Conversely, the earlier sections use the term "Connected Resource" a couple
of times. A "Connected Resource" is defined by RFC6121/6120 as "[has] bound
a resource to the stream"
Although the term "Connected Resource" is used in section 8.5, none of the
specifications therein seem to apply to Connected Resources.
The usage of the term "active resource" in section 8.5.4 could be an
artifact of RFC3921/3920, which defines an "active resource" as: "Upon
establishing a session, a connected resource (in the terminology of
[XMPP-CORE]) is said to be an "active resource."
Although section 8.5 advertises that it will define how stanzas related to
connected resources are to be processed ("If there is at least one
available resource or connected resource, how the stanza is processed
depends on the stanza type.") it does not seem to do that. All definitions
seem to depend on having at least one available resource (which is defined
as a connected resource that has sent initial presence), leaving scenarios
in which only connected resources are present, undefined.
Am I misinterpreting this? If not, is this something that should be cleared
up (or explicitly be left undefined)?
As a practical example of a question that I believe is left unanswered: How
should a server process a message stanza of type 'normal', addressed to a
bare JID that represents a local user (the scenario of section 8.5.2.1.1 of
RFC 6121) if the corresponding user only has one or more Connected
Resources (but not any Available Resources)? I believe that there are many
possible variations on this question, I'm limiting it to one to illustrate
the larger issue that I described in this email.
For additional context: this was discussed in the XSF's Discussion MUC
earlier. Logs of that conversation can be found at
https://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2025-05-28#2025-05-28-a5d887bd6428222c
Kind regards,
Guus
Good evening.
I intend to create a ptivate publishing system (i.e. journal) which is
based upon Atom Over XMPP (XEP-0277 and XEP-0472), and which would
interact with Libervia and Movim.
I usually utilize FastAPI, yet I would want to know of other possible
frameworks which you think that might be more preferable for that task.
Reference: https://git.xmpp-it.net/sch/Rivista
Kind regards,
Schimon.
Good day, to one and all.
I am considering to utilize a PubSub service as a public discussion
board; and, as a public discussion board, it should be free for all.
I was wondering whether an approval or other type of moderation
mechanism is specified for PubSub.
Kind regards,
Schimon
Hi all,
This follows a discussion the XSF's Standards Discussion MUC. Logs start at
https://logs.xmpp.org/xsf/2025-05-18 (and continue into the next days).
XEP-0115: Entity Capabilities describes how capabilities from the
"generating entity" can be discovered by a "requesting entity" in section
6.2. To do this, the "requesting entity" sends a disco#info request (that
MUST include a disco 'node' attribute for backwards-compatibility).
The 'node' attribute value is generated in a way that results in an
application-specific value that will be specific to the application that
generated the string as well as the capabilities that are currently
advertised by that application.
What the XEP does not describe, is what is to happen when the requesting
entity uses in their request a 'node' attribute value that is different
from what the generating entity would produce (given its current
configuration). Since providing the value, the generating entity could have
undergone configuration changes making available a different set of
capabilities, thus making the original value outdated.
The XEP is improved by explicitly describing this scenario, by defining
what should happen when a requesting entity uses a conflicting 'node'
attribute value.
I can think of a number of options:
1. If the 'node' attribute value sent by the requesting entity is
recognized by the generating entity as a valid value in some context (eg: a
value that represents an earlier state of offered capabilities), the
generating entity could respond with the corresponding capabilities.
Downsides: the requesting entity may take this as an indication that this
represents the _current_ capabilities of the requesting entity, when that
may not be the case. This approach can't be used if the generating entity
does not recognize the value
2. The request could be answered with an error (eg: item-not-found).
Downside: the requesting entity, that only performs this request because
it's interested in the current capabilities of the generating entity, needs
to do another round trip to get the answers it is looking for.
3. The request could be answered with a response in which the generating
entity uses the new/up-to-date 'node' attribute value (it explicitly does
not echo back the value that was in the request). Downside: there is a
potential backwards compatibility issue for existing implementations that
currently use another approach. They may end up mismatching 'node'
attribute values and associated capabilities.
Given the wording in section 6.2, specifically the definition that the
requesting entity is to include the 'node' attribute for backwards
compatibility, seems to suggest that the responding entity may not have a
need for this value. That, to me, suggests that option 3 is most
appropriate.
I suggest that section 6.2 of XEP-0115 is modified to include an explicit
description of option 3. The backwards-incompatibility issues are arguably
existing only because of unspecified behavior. I do not see how such issues
would be significantly affecting functionality. As the XEP is currently in
state Stable, backwards incompatible changes are allowable.
Thoughts?
Kind regards,
Guus
Hello,
We've got a discussion about thread on xsf@ a couple of days ago, and I would
like to bring it here.
I initially thought that XEP-0461 (Message Replies) was redundant with
threads, except in the case where there is no thread ID in the message a user
wants to reply too. After discussion, notably with singpolyma and lovetox, it
appears that we don't have the same view on this.
The way I got it, we have basically 2 ways to see threads:
1. A series of replies to any message in a group chat, à la Slack (in Slack,
you see the replies hidden under parent message, with something like "X
replies", and when you click, a panel appear with the whole thread.
2. A side discussion explicitly started, that could be seen like a new chat
window (UI example: user clicks a "start a new thread button", and start a
blank window with it message, this message has a new thread ID, that will be
used by people replying to it).
In case 1, the parent message needs a thread ID so that thread can continue
with the same ID. Problem is if parent message doesn't has a thread ID
(because client doesn't support thread, or because there is no thread ID for
each message), in this case a XEP-0461 "reply to" can be used, then the first
reply has a new thread ID, and the thread can continue.
In case 2, the explicitly started thread has a newly generated thread ID, so
there is no problem.
I want to support both 1 and 2. For 1, my initial reading of XEP-0201 (Best
Practices for Message Threads) was that a new thread ID should be generated
for each message:
> Unless a <message/> stanza is written in direct reply to another <message/>
> stanza, if a ThreadID is included then its value SHOULD be newly generated
> when a human user initiates a chat conversation with another user (i.e., a
> <message/> stanza of type 'chat'), starts a new conversation in the context
> of a multi-user chat environment (i.e., a <message/> stanza of type
> 'groupchat'), or sends a normal message.
XEP-0201 §3.2.
But after discussion, I realise that it's not requested to generate a new ID
each time, and it seems that generating new thread ID for each message would
be a problem for some clients (notably Cheogram which would create a thread UI
for each ID).
The solution would be to use "reply to" from XEP-0461, then a newly generated
thread ID.
I've also proposed an alternative when parent message ID could be used as
thread ID, this may we can find parent message without relying on XEP-0461.
For the moment, I think that I won't generate new thread ID for each message,
and if I create a thread from a parent message I'll use a XEP-0461 "reply to"
and generate a new thread ID, then use this thread ID for following message in
this thread.
However, I would like to have feedback from the wider community:
- how to you handle or plan to handle threads?
- Are you planning to implement case 1 (threads can be started from any
message) and/or case 2 (threads are explicitly started)?
- How would you handle case 1?
Thanks!
Best,
Goffi
Good day.
Last week, I have contacted various of projects and asked to render
messages with XMPP URI by their particular context.
Please refer to the Gemini page or see the attached file for references.
gemini://woodpeckersnest.space/~schapps/journal/2025-04-24-rendering-xmpp-uri-by-context.gmi
After communicating this information to nephele, the developer of
Renga chat client for Haiku, he has advised to standartize this
approach by adding a new attribute to XEP-0372.
Sun 27 Apr 2025 06:03:34 PM - nephele:
> The XEP 0372 as it exists now seems to almost hit what you want, maybe
> only another type is needed. for example
<reference xmlns='urn:xmpp:reference:0'
begin='72'
end='78'
type='adhoc'
uri='xmpp:nephele@xmpp.org?command'/>
Please advise.
Kind regards,
Schimon
Hi,
All these XEPs miss a paragraph how corrections should be handled correctly e.g. if the ID of the original message or of the correction should be used.
This leads already to different implementations in popular clients, none of which can be considered wrong as the XEPs do not specify a correct handling.
Regards
Philipp
Good day.
I am the developer of Slixfeed news bot.
Data Forms are extensively utilized by that bot.
I think that it would be beneficial to define IRI/URI to acess to
Ad-Hoc Commands and Data Forms.
== Ad-Hoc Commands ==
This IRI/URI would open the form "manual".
xmpp:slixfeed@xmpp.org?command=help
This IRI/URI would open the form "about".
xmpp:slixfeed@xmpp.org?command=about
== Data Forms ==
Provided that a Data Form has an identifier, this IRI/URI would open
the about dialog for the given query.
This IRI/URI would open the form "about" (same as of the example of the
Ad-Hoc Command, which can lead to the same form by explicitly define
it).
xmpp:slixfeed@xmpp.org?form=about-start
This IRI/URI would open the form "about" in the next form to form
about-start with the value "thanks".
xmpp:slixfeed@xmpp.org?form=about-result?payload=thanks
Please advise.
Kind regards,
Schimon