[Council] meeting minutes, 2009-04-29

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Fri May 8 12:01:41 CDT 2009

Hash: SHA1

Kev, thanks for the review.

Perhaps we could discuss on the gaming at xmpp.org list:


I'll forward it there.


On 5/8/09 2:56 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> I think these were all my action points, please correct me if not...
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:12 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
>> 5. http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/instant-gaming.html
> Quite a few weirdnesses here. The grammar errors (whichs that should
> be thats) and typos are a bit grating, but we can fix those. The Disco
> is odd - why announce support for 'games' as well as the supported
> games? The ID rules in <thread/> are daft - it can be any format you
> like, but if you use dates in it, they SHOULD be -82ish? Most of that
> paragraph would be clearer if it wasn't there. The whole 'renew' thing
> seems quite peculiar, as it seems to be duplicating 'new' for the most
> part. I'm not at all convinced by the requirement on users to respond
> to invitations. There are race conditions in the game saving stuff.
> I've also got no idea why we'd try and shoehorn saved states into data
> forms here.
>> 6. http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/multi-user_gaming.html
> This seems to be heavily redefining muc, which bothers me - There's no
> reason for it to be copy/pasting most of the MUC spec. What are the
> category and game fields mentioned under example 7? I may have been
> being blind.
>> 7. http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/tictactoe.html
> Renew still seems to be a solution looking for a problem here, but
> other than that it doesn't look horrible.
>> 8. http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/tictactoe-mug.html
> I'm not convinced that there should need to be a mug and non-mug
> version, but hey.
> XEP reviewing first thing in the morning is a bad idea - I'm still grumpy :)
> /K
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the Council mailing list