[Standards] Simple Jingle example(s) and spec(s) wanted

[Justin Karneges]

On Monday 05 February 2007 3:56 pm, Rachel Blackman wrote:
> Maybe I'm overreacting, but I'm already seeing a place down the road
> where we have multiple incompatible file transfer methods, and that's
> not going to help client interoperability.  If I create a new client
> from scratch, do I implement Jingle and the associated file transfer,
> and just ignore stream profiles?  Do I stick to the widely-
> implemented stream profile method, and ignore Jingle's FT?  Do I have
> to implement BOTH, and try to transparently hide from the user which
> is being used?

XEP-96 is the standard.  This is what you implement for file transfer.  If you 
want to implement something else, by all means have fun with it, but you 
absolutely must implement XEP-96 also.  We have standards for a reason.

I don't see a problem with extensions or alternative mechanisms, as long as we 
don't forget our standards.

Psi, for example, has a custom extension to S5B to allow role reversal, which 
essentially turns S5B into ICE.  This allows for a much greater success rate 
than a typical S5B transfer, as Remko mentions.  But here's the 
_big_huge_massive_point_ that must not be overlooked: Psi is 100% compatible 
with plain S5B.

I mean, this is really simple concept.  You want XHTML-IM?  Fine, but you 
better be able to do plaintext also.

With this in mind, there is really no problem with developing a Jingle File 
Transfer.  What *is* a problem is when the standards are ignored.  If file 
transfer compatibility is desired between Google Talk and other XMPP clients, 
well, it is quite clear what must be done.

-Justin