[standards-jig] Version 0.6 of JEP-0045 (Multi-User Chat)
richard at dobson-i.net
Mon Sep 23 05:55:20 CDT 2002
> I hope I can put your mind at ease with this posting.
> In reality there is always some kind of interaction between the
> standardizers and the implementors. This has been very noticable in the
> creation of HTML. In that case the work of creating extensions to the
> protocol was left to the implementors and both Microsoft and Netscape
> took all the possible advantages of that situation. If there is a need
> for extensions then they will be added, whether a standard exists or
> not. JEP-45 is in itself a result of implementations demanding changes,
> isn't it?
> Although we disagree on other matters i hope we can agree on one thing;
> that the work of deciding matters regarding a protocol should be done by
> the standards body, not by the implementors. We all suffer from he
> mishmash of a "standard" that Microsoft and Netscape created for us in
> HTML. Let us be more like the w3c from the start with muc2.
> We could indeed emulate a single interaction for a treeview of available
> rooms with a spidery climb around rooms, if we are strict. But wouldn't
> a single request be more elegant?
> At the minimum there would have to be a standardized notation for
> addressing a specific room in a hierarchy relatively as well as
> Nobody would be forced to use a hierarchy but the possibility of
> implementing one would not be eliminated either.
I still dont get the need for this room hierarchy stuff, arnt we supposed to
be making a simple easily understandable system? why is there any need for
all this hierarchical room stuff, its just going to make it that much more
difficult for people to understand what should be a simple function, somehow
I dont think my parents (good examples of novice internet users) would
understand it and they would just not use it and go onto another system, its
just making it needlessly complex for practically no real benefit. If you
want to make a system hardly anyone (other than technically adept people)
will be able to understand then fine but you extensions should not be
included in this JEP which is trying to establish the lowest base spec and
requirements for every jabber conferencing system, as has been previously
stated your requirement is very implementation specific and has no place in
the base protocol.
> One other thing...
> We've been experimenting with machine translations and it would be great
> if there could be a method to retrieve settings regarding the
> environment of a room, such as default language.
> Or is that considered a room feature?
That is something out of scope of the JEP and I think work is already
underway investigating the standard xml language stuff.
More information about the Standards-JIG