Moving 'Discover Nodes' from XEP-0060 to XEP-0248
Hello! Section 5.2 of XEP-0060 'Publish-Subscribe' describes how disco#items is used to discover nodes. Most of that section describes node discovery in node hierarchies and collection nodes. In version 1.12 of XEP-0060 text about collections was moved to XEP-0248 'PubSub Collection Nodes'. This specification contains a smaller paragraph on node discovery (which is also numbered 5.2). I would like to see the complexity of XEP-0060 be reduced. I believe that most, if not all of its section 5.2 should be moved to XEP-0248 and removed from XEP-0060. The suggested change should not affect backwards compatibility, as it doesn't result in a change of behavior: as far as I can see, the text only applies to hierarchies and collection nodes. The change therefore is permissible even considering XEP-0060 is Stable. Is there any objection to this? What would relevant Node Discovery content for XEP-0060 be (other than a reference to XEP-0248)? Kind regards, Guus
Le jeudi 4 septembre 2025, 15:52:25 heure d’été d’Europe centrale Guus der Kinderen a écrit :
Hello!
Section 5.2 of XEP-0060 'Publish-Subscribe' describes how disco#items is used to discover nodes. Most of that section describes node discovery in node hierarchies and collection nodes.
In version 1.12 of XEP-0060 text about collections was moved to XEP-0248 'PubSub Collection Nodes'. This specification contains a smaller paragraph on node discovery (which is also numbered 5.2).
I would like to see the complexity of XEP-0060 be reduced. I believe that most, if not all of its section 5.2 should be moved to XEP-0248 and removed from XEP-0060.
The suggested change should not affect backwards compatibility, as it doesn't result in a change of behavior: as far as I can see, the text only applies to hierarchies and collection nodes. The change therefore is permissible even considering XEP-0060 is Stable.
Is there any objection to this? What would relevant Node Discovery content for XEP-0060 be (other than a reference to XEP-0248)?
Kind regards,
Guus
Hi Guus, While I agree that the reference to collections, root and leaf nodes should be removed or moved away, node discovery is certainly useful in general use-case and should be part of XEP-0060 IMO. The mechanism itself is a usual disco#items query, the section mostly explain how to interpret the result, so it doesn't really complexify the protocol. Discovering nodes is useful (and used) to discovers things such as blogs, XEP-0346 forms and other pubsub-based features. Best, Goffi
Thanks Goffi, Thanks! I agree: it is desirable to have a section in XEP-0060 that allows nodes to be discovered. Am I right to assume that, in the context of XEP-0060 *without* XEP-0248, this is a single service disco#items request (to the pubsub service JID), that returns one result (possibly paginated/searchable)? If that is indeed true, then I think we should replace examples 9, 10, 11 and 12 (and corresponding texts) with just two examples that do 'only' that: this removes significant complexity. What is now 9, 10, 11 and 12 should go into XEP-0248. As I explained in my previous email, I don't think that this is breaking backwards compatibility. However, if Node Discovery is important, as you state (and I am certainly not arguing against that), then I think we need something extra. As I read section 5.2 of XEP-0060, Node Discovery functionality is not mandatory: it is a MUST *only *when the service implements a hierarchy of nodes. I don't think that we can have a hierarchy of nodes without Collection Nodes / XEP-0248, right? That means that it's not mandatory at all now. I think we should consider changing that. Summarizing, the desired changes: 1. Replace XEP-0248 Section 5.2 with much of the content that is now in XEP-0060 Section 5.2. 2. Reduce XEP-0060 Section 5.2 to an example that does not include hierarchy / Collection Nodes. 3. Add to XEP-0060 Section 5.2 that it must be possible to discover nodes (even if there's no hierarchy). I would like to add a MUST condition there, but given that this XEP is Stable, I don't know if we can. As this change adds a new requirement, it may cause pre-existing implementations to suddenly be no longer compliant. Is that "breaking backwards compatibility" as defined in XEP-0001? What do you think? Kind regards, Guus On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 6:18 PM Goffi <goffi@goffi.org> wrote:
Le jeudi 4 septembre 2025, 15:52:25 heure d’été d’Europe centrale Guus der Kinderen a écrit :
Hello!
Section 5.2 of XEP-0060 'Publish-Subscribe' describes how disco#items is used to discover nodes. Most of that section describes node discovery in node hierarchies and collection nodes.
In version 1.12 of XEP-0060 text about collections was moved to XEP-0248 'PubSub Collection Nodes'. This specification contains a smaller paragraph on node discovery (which is also numbered 5.2).
I would like to see the complexity of XEP-0060 be reduced. I believe that most, if not all of its section 5.2 should be moved to XEP-0248 and removed from XEP-0060.
The suggested change should not affect backwards compatibility, as it doesn't result in a change of behavior: as far as I can see, the text only applies to hierarchies and collection nodes. The change therefore is permissible even considering XEP-0060 is Stable.
Is there any objection to this? What would relevant Node Discovery content for XEP-0060 be (other than a reference to XEP-0248)?
Kind regards,
Guus
Hi Guus,
While I agree that the reference to collections, root and leaf nodes should be removed or moved away, node discovery is certainly useful in general use-case and should be part of XEP-0060 IMO.
The mechanism itself is a usual disco#items query, the section mostly explain how to interpret the result, so it doesn't really complexify the protocol.
Discovering nodes is useful (and used) to discovers things such as blogs, XEP-0346 forms and other pubsub-based features.
Best, Goffi_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- standards@xmpp.org To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave@xmpp.org
Le jeudi 4 septembre 2025, 19:34:49 heure d’été d’Europe centrale Guus der Kinderen a écrit :
Am I right to assume that, in the context of XEP-0060 *without* XEP-0248, this is a single service disco#items request (to the pubsub service JID), that returns one result (possibly paginated/searchable)?
Disco#items to the pubsub service without node specified (what is called the "root" node there) is certainly the most important one, that is example 9 and 10. Example 11 (with node specified) can be used to retrieve items of a node (without getting the whole payload as with a normal pubsub get). I know that at some point at least Movim was using it, I don't know if it's still the case. This is probably one that can be discussed (similar result can be achieved with pubsub get, at the price of being far less efficient if we want only item names), but as the XEP is stable, I think that this should stay. I don't think that this is particularly difficult to implement, it's a very similar request to a pubsub get. Example 12 is definitely the one that can be moved to XEP-0248.
If that is indeed true, then I think we should replace examples 9, 10, 11 and 12 (and corresponding texts) with just two examples that do 'only' that: this removes significant complexity. What is now 9, 10, 11 and 12 should go into XEP-0248.
As explained above, I think that only example 12 can be moved.
As I explained in my previous email, I don't think that this is breaking backwards compatibility.
However, if Node Discovery is important, as you state (and I am certainly not arguing against that), then I think we need something extra. As I read section 5.2 of XEP-0060, Node Discovery functionality is not mandatory: it is a MUST *only *when the service implements a hierarchy of nodes.
I don't think that we can have a hierarchy of nodes without Collection Nodes / XEP-0248, right? That means that it's not mandatory at all now. I think we should consider changing that.
We do have hierarchy with the new XEP-0496 (Pubsub Relationships) that I've authored. But those use another optional mechanism to discover the hierarchy, namely XEP-0499 (Pubsub Extended Discovery), so it's not a problem here. Note that I think that XEP-0248 should be deprecated at some point: there are very few implementations, it has issues that have been discussed during summit and on standard@ and xsf@, and XEP-0496 and related XEP should cover all the use cases.
Summarizing, the desired changes:
1. Replace XEP-0248 Section 5.2 with much of the content that is now in XEP-0060 Section 5.2. 2. Reduce XEP-0060 Section 5.2 to an example that does not include hierarchy / Collection Nodes.
I think that a rewording and move of Ex. 12 is the way to go. We would have 2 use case: - request on pubsub service without node specified, to have list of nodes (in flat case) - request with node specified, to have names of items of the node.
3. Add to XEP-0060 Section 5.2 that it must be possible to discover nodes (even if there's no hierarchy). I would like to add a MUST condition there, but given that this XEP is Stable, I don't know if we can. As this change adds a new requirement, it may cause pre-existing implementations to suddenly be no longer compliant. Is that "breaking backwards compatibility" as defined in XEP-0001?
I would love to have a MUST here too. This can maybe be discussed with council, but I suspect that it would be hard to change at this stage. I'm curious to hear what others say on that. Best, Goffi
Hi Goffi, We're in agreement, I think. I do prefer example 11 to be removed. Your argument of keeping it is based on it being used to discover _items_. That practice (discovering items) is not defined in section 5.2. Instead, that is in section 5.5. Section 5.5 already has an appropriate example). Kind regards, Guus On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 9:53 PM Goffi <goffi@goffi.org> wrote:
Le jeudi 4 septembre 2025, 19:34:49 heure d’été d’Europe centrale Guus der Kinderen a écrit :
Am I right to assume that, in the context of XEP-0060 *without* XEP-0248, this is a single service disco#items request (to the pubsub service JID), that returns one result (possibly paginated/searchable)?
Disco#items to the pubsub service without node specified (what is called the "root" node there) is certainly the most important one, that is example 9 and 10.
Example 11 (with node specified) can be used to retrieve items of a node (without getting the whole payload as with a normal pubsub get). I know that at some point at least Movim was using it, I don't know if it's still the case.
This is probably one that can be discussed (similar result can be achieved with pubsub get, at the price of being far less efficient if we want only item names), but as the XEP is stable, I think that this should stay.
I don't think that this is particularly difficult to implement, it's a very similar request to a pubsub get.
Example 12 is definitely the one that can be moved to XEP-0248.
If that is indeed true, then I think we should replace examples 9, 10, 11 and 12 (and corresponding texts) with just two examples that do 'only' that: this removes significant complexity. What is now 9, 10, 11 and 12 should go into XEP-0248.
As explained above, I think that only example 12 can be moved.
As I explained in my previous email, I don't think that this is breaking backwards compatibility.
However, if Node Discovery is important, as you state (and I am certainly not arguing against that), then I think we need something extra. As I read section 5.2 of XEP-0060, Node Discovery functionality is not mandatory: it is a MUST *only *when the service implements a hierarchy of nodes.
I don't think that we can have a hierarchy of nodes without Collection Nodes / XEP-0248, right? That means that it's not mandatory at all now. I think we should consider changing that.
We do have hierarchy with the new XEP-0496 (Pubsub Relationships) that I've authored. But those use another optional mechanism to discover the hierarchy, namely XEP-0499 (Pubsub Extended Discovery), so it's not a problem here.
Note that I think that XEP-0248 should be deprecated at some point: there are very few implementations, it has issues that have been discussed during summit and on standard@ and xsf@, and XEP-0496 and related XEP should cover all the use cases.
Summarizing, the desired changes:
1. Replace XEP-0248 Section 5.2 with much of the content that is now in XEP-0060 Section 5.2. 2. Reduce XEP-0060 Section 5.2 to an example that does not include hierarchy / Collection Nodes.
I think that a rewording and move of Ex. 12 is the way to go. We would have 2 use case:
- request on pubsub service without node specified, to have list of nodes (in flat case) - request with node specified, to have names of items of the node.
3. Add to XEP-0060 Section 5.2 that it must be possible to discover nodes (even if there's no hierarchy). I would like to add a MUST condition there, but given that this XEP is Stable, I don't know if we can. As this change adds a new requirement, it may cause pre-existing implementations to suddenly be no longer compliant. Is that "breaking backwards compatibility" as defined in XEP-0001?
I would love to have a MUST here too. This can maybe be discussed with council, but I suspect that it would be hard to change at this stage. I'm curious to hear what others say on that.
Best, Goffi_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- standards@xmpp.org To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave@xmpp.org
Hi Guus,
We're in agreement, I think. I do prefer example 11 to be removed. Your argument of keeping it is based on it being used to discover _items_. That practice (discovering items) is not defined in section 5.2. Instead, that is in section 5.5. Section 5.5 already has an appropriate example).
You're right, items discovery is only mentioned at the end of §5.2, and §5.5 describes it. So example 11 can be removed too. Regarding hierarchy, XEP-0496 and XEP-0499 are explicitly backward compatible, meaning that all nodes are returned if extended discovery is not used. So we can remove the notion of "first-level nodes" from the description of example 10 (except if we want to keep it due to XEP-0248). Will you make a PR for those changes? For a stable XEP it will have to go through council, and authors input would be good to have too. Best, Goffi
Hi again! I'll certainly make a PR, but I'm waiting for a while, to: - give others an opportunity to provide feedback - find out, while I continue working down the XEP, if there are other things that I'd like to address. One such 'other thing' is this: XEP-0060 in section 4.6 defines two forms of addressing: JID and JID+NodeID. It states the JID format SHOULD be used when using a protocol that does not support the node attribute. However, it does not explicitly prohibit the JID format from being used if the protocol _does_ support the node attribute, right? I believe that this leaves the door open to using the JID address format with Service Discovery. Unless I'm mistaken, this is then a valid equivalent of example 10: <iq type='result' from='pubsub.shakespeare.lit' to='francisco@denmark.lit/barracks' id='nodes1'> <query xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#items'> <item jid='pubsub.shakespeare.lit/blogs' name='Weblog updates'/> <item jid='pubsub.shakespeare.lit/news' name='News and announcements'/> </query> </iq> This seems to be indistinguishable from a response that discovers items (rather than nodes) as specified in section 5.5. Using JID+NodeID in a protocol that supports the node attribute seems a silly thing to do to me, but I don't think it is forbidden by the XEP. Should we add a restriction (or at least a recommendation)? Kind regards, Guus On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 10:32 AM Goffi <goffi@goffi.org> wrote:
Hi Guus,
We're in agreement, I think. I do prefer example 11 to be removed. Your argument of keeping it is based on it being used to discover _items_. That practice (discovering items) is not defined in section 5.2. Instead, that is in section 5.5. Section 5.5 already has an appropriate example).
You're right, items discovery is only mentioned at the end of §5.2, and §5.5 describes it. So example 11 can be removed too.
Regarding hierarchy, XEP-0496 and XEP-0499 are explicitly backward compatible, meaning that all nodes are returned if extended discovery is not used. So we can remove the notion of "first-level nodes" from the description of example 10 (except if we want to keep it due to XEP-0248).
Will you make a PR for those changes? For a stable XEP it will have to go through council, and authors input would be good to have too.
Best, Goffi_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- standards@xmpp.org To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave@xmpp.org
Hi again Guus, Le vendredi 5 septembre 2025, 11:00:48 heure d’été d’Europe centrale Guus der Kinderen a écrit :
[SNIP] XEP-0060 in section 4.6 defines two forms of addressing: JID and JID+NodeID. It states the JID format SHOULD be used when using a protocol that does not support the node attribute. However, it does not explicitly prohibit the JID format from being used if the protocol _does_ support the node attribute, right?
As I'm always working with node attribute, I was not even aware that using the resource for node ID was possible! I wonder which implementation do support that.
I believe that this leaves the door open to using the JID address format with Service Discovery. Unless I'm mistaken, this is then a valid equivalent of example 10:
<iq type='result' from='pubsub.shakespeare.lit' to='francisco@denmark.lit/barracks' id='nodes1'> <query xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#items'> <item jid='pubsub.shakespeare.lit/blogs' name='Weblog updates'/> <item jid='pubsub.shakespeare.lit/news' name='News and announcements'/> </query> </iq>
This seems to be indistinguishable from a response that discovers items (rather than nodes) as specified in section 5.5.
If that were indeed possible, I guess that using the resource for node in the answer, would here be equivalent to have the "node" attribute. But this is for sure a great source of confusion and bugs.
Using JID+NodeID in a protocol that supports the node attribute seems a silly thing to do to me, but I don't think it is forbidden by the XEP. Should we add a restriction (or at least a recommendation)?
I agree that this could be explicitly stated. Actually, I would be really happy to get completely rid of using the resource for the node ID as stated in §4.6.1, we have already enough troubles by using resources for MUCs, no need to do the same with Pubsub. I wonder if this is used by anybody in the wild. Thank you for catching that and your effort on improving pubsub Guus. Best, Gofffi
Hi all, As discussed, I have been preparing a PR with the changes discussed so far. That PR is now available, here: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1455 I have added a few more that have not explicitly been discussed in this mail thread yet: - To further reduce the complexity of XEP-0060, but also to improve the consistency of the separation between XEP-0060 and XEP-0248, most collection-specific references, such as related Registrar considerations) are migrated from XEP-0060 to XEP-0248. Many of these already exist in the latter, in which case the duplicate in the former should be removed. - Another desirable change is to have the specification of changes to the node type be centralized in one XEP. Currently, XEP-0060 describes changing a leaf to a collection, while XEP-0248 describes changing a collection to a leaf (but uses generic language that is easily interpreted as if node type changes are not allowable at all). By having both processes be specified in XEP-0248, there is a lot less room for ambiguity (while it also further reduces complexity in XEP-0060). - XEP-0060 should no longer reference to XEP-0248 for a 'process to retrieve the default subscription configuration options for collection nodes'. Such process is not explicitly defined in XEP-0248 (meaning that the process is equal to that in XEP-0060), meaning that the reference is more likely to cause confusion than clarity. Although additional configuration options (but not a new process) are provided in XEP-0248, it is perfectly reasonable for readers to expect that type-specific configuration is to be found in type-specific XEPs. - XEP-0060 defines a MUST for a collection nodes to support 'pubsub#notify_config' (support is a SHOULD for leaf nodes). Such a strict requirement for collection nodes should be defined in the XEP-0248 instead of in XEP-0060. I don't believe that these changes are contentious, but please correct me if you feel different. With all of these changes, I believe that the split off of 'collections' from the original specification is now improved. That serves my original purpose, which was to be able to write integration tests to cover XEP-0060 without having to deal with hierarchy / collection functionality. There is one remaining gripe that I have with the XEPs, which is the usage of a 'root' collection in XEP-0060, even though it's defined in XEP-0248. That doesn't sit quite right with me, but I'm not seeing easy ways to improve on that. Something something not calling the root a 'collection', and moving the corresponding definition back from XEP-0248 to XEP-0060, but that feels like stretching things. For now, at least for the purpose of this set of changes, I think I'll leave it as-is. Better, not perfect. I have somewhat cheekily already opened the PR even though not all changes have been discussed here. If you have concerns, please raise them on this mailinglist. I'll change the PR to draft if significant concerns are raised, to avoid wasting time of the processing entities. Kind regards, Guus On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 12:28 PM Goffi <goffi@goffi.org> wrote:
Hi again Guus,
Le vendredi 5 septembre 2025, 11:00:48 heure d’été d’Europe centrale Guus der Kinderen a écrit :
[SNIP] XEP-0060 in section 4.6 defines two forms of addressing: JID and JID+NodeID. It states the JID format SHOULD be used when using a protocol that does not support the node attribute. However, it does not explicitly prohibit the JID format from being used if the protocol _does_ support the node attribute, right?
As I'm always working with node attribute, I was not even aware that using the resource for node ID was possible! I wonder which implementation do support that.
I believe that this leaves the door open to using the JID address format with Service Discovery. Unless I'm mistaken, this is then a valid equivalent of example 10:
<iq type='result' from='pubsub.shakespeare.lit' to='francisco@denmark.lit/barracks' id='nodes1'> <query xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#items'> <item jid='pubsub.shakespeare.lit/blogs' name='Weblog updates'/> <item jid='pubsub.shakespeare.lit/news' name='News and announcements'/> </query> </iq>
This seems to be indistinguishable from a response that discovers items (rather than nodes) as specified in section 5.5.
If that were indeed possible, I guess that using the resource for node in the answer, would here be equivalent to have the "node" attribute. But this is for sure a great source of confusion and bugs.
Using JID+NodeID in a protocol that supports the node attribute seems a silly thing to do to me, but I don't think it is forbidden by the XEP. Should we add a restriction (or at least a recommendation)?
I agree that this could be explicitly stated. Actually, I would be really happy to get completely rid of using the resource for the node ID as stated in §4.6.1, we have already enough troubles by using resources for MUCs, no need to do the same with Pubsub.
I wonder if this is used by anybody in the wild.
Thank you for catching that and your effort on improving pubsub Guus.
Best, Gofffi_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- standards@xmpp.org To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave@xmpp.org
Hi Guus, I'm writing to give explanation of my today vote at Council. I've voted -1 to block the submission because we were at the end of the 2 weeks time-frame, and the PR would be automatically accepted otherwise. The veto was just to block the current one for a re-submission with the requested change. So to be clear, I'm all in favor of this PR and thankful to your work, I'm just blocking it as discussed on the ticket itself because I'm worrying that the PR wording is changing the meaning of XEP-0060 regarding node discovery with disco#items. I'm repeating here for archive (and possibly discussion): XEP-0060 originally says:
If a service implements a hierarchy of nodes (by means of <link url='#collections'>Collection Nodes</link>), it MUST also enable entities to discover the nodes in that hierarchy by means of the <strong>Service Discovery</strong> protocol
The "MUST" here is only "If a service implements a hierarchy of nodes". Your PR in its current state changes it for:
A service MUST enable entities to discover the nodes by means of the <strong>Service Discovery</strong> protocol, subject to the recommendations in &xep0030; regarding large result sets (for which &xep0055; or some other protocol SHOULD be used).
There is no longer a requirement for a service implementing a hierarchy of nodes, so there's an unconditional "MUST" here. That changes the specification and may make existing implementations invalid, which shouldn't happen with a stable XEP. Therefore, the PR should use "SHOULD" instead of "MUST" here, and it would also be beneficial to add text explicitly stating that different entities may have different nodes listed, and the list may even be empty for some entities. This is important socially because people may want to hide some nodes (e.g., a private or invite-only blog). It's also important technically because it must be clear that the list of nodes cannot be cached globally (at least without further negotiation), and is valid only per entity. The council discussed that a "MUST" with explanation could be acceptable, but after further consideration, and given that the original state had no "MUST" for non-hierarchical nodes, I really think a "SHOULD" is needed here. I hope my explanation is clear. Please update this small detail; I'll definitely be +1 on the next round. Best, Goffi
Hi Goffi, Thanks for the feedback. We already were in general agreement that this change was needed, I think, but were waiting for other Council members to weigh in. I have now applied the requested changes in https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1455/commits/f048f8ef08a129f1a2e5a5efd16350... Kind regards, Guus On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 8:54 PM Goffi <goffi@goffi.org> wrote:
Hi Guus,
I'm writing to give explanation of my today vote at Council.
I've voted -1 to block the submission because we were at the end of the 2 weeks time-frame, and the PR would be automatically accepted otherwise. The veto was just to block the current one for a re-submission with the requested change.
So to be clear, I'm all in favor of this PR and thankful to your work, I'm just blocking it as discussed on the ticket itself because I'm worrying that the PR wording is changing the meaning of XEP-0060 regarding node discovery with disco#items.
I'm repeating here for archive (and possibly discussion):
XEP-0060 originally says:
If a service implements a hierarchy of nodes (by means of <link url='#collections'>Collection Nodes</link>), it MUST also enable entities to discover the nodes in that hierarchy by means of the <strong>Service Discovery</strong> protocol
The "MUST" here is only "If a service implements a hierarchy of nodes".
Your PR in its current state changes it for:
A service MUST enable entities to discover the nodes by means of the <strong>Service Discovery</strong> protocol, subject to the recommendations in &xep0030; regarding large result sets (for which &xep0055; or some other protocol SHOULD be used).
There is no longer a requirement for a service implementing a hierarchy of nodes, so there's an unconditional "MUST" here.
That changes the specification and may make existing implementations invalid, which shouldn't happen with a stable XEP.
Therefore, the PR should use "SHOULD" instead of "MUST" here, and it would also be beneficial to add text explicitly stating that different entities may have different nodes listed, and the list may even be empty for some entities.
This is important socially because people may want to hide some nodes (e.g., a private or invite-only blog).
It's also important technically because it must be clear that the list of nodes cannot be cached globally (at least without further negotiation), and is valid only per entity.
The council discussed that a "MUST" with explanation could be acceptable, but after further consideration, and given that the original state had no "MUST" for non-hierarchical nodes, I really think a "SHOULD" is needed here.
I hope my explanation is clear. Please update this small detail; I'll definitely be +1 on the next round.
Best, Goffi_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- standards@xmpp.org To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave@xmpp.org
Le mercredi 1 octobre 2025, 09:17:42 heure d’été d’Europe centrale Guus der Kinderen a écrit :
Hi Goffi,
Thanks for the feedback. We already were in general agreement that this change was needed, I think, but were waiting for other Council members to weigh in.
I have now applied the requested changes in https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1455/commits/f048f8ef08a129f1a2e5a5efd16350...
Kind regards,
Guus
Hi Guus, thanks! It's fine by me now. Best, Goffi
participants (2)
-
Goffi -
Guus der Kinderen