[Standards] Best approach for Shared XML editing

Lirette, Keith J. CONTR J9C618 Keith.Lirette at je.jfcom.mil
Thu Sep 11 17:21:09 UTC 2008


Our client can be downloaded from https://xmpp.je.jfcom.mil/1.4Final/

The TransVerse client by itself provides 1-to-1 whiteboarding.  We also
have an OpenFire plugin that supports MUC whiteboarding.

-Keith Lirette

-----Original Message-----
From: standards-bounces at xmpp.org [mailto:standards-bounces at xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Bishop, Michael W. CONTR J9C880
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 1:13 PM
To: XMPP Extension Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Standards] Best approach for Shared XML editing

Hello,

We've done it with our proposed specification:
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/whiteboard2.html

The date is incorrect; I don't think I changed it from the template I
used.  This protocol started development in 2006.  While the document
centers around SVG, it can be used with any kind of XML document.  We've
been actively working against this protocol and have future versions and
protocol additions planned.  Currently, we've had success in test plans,
performance testing, and live deployments in numerous environments.

Michael Bishop

> -----Original Message-----
> From: standards-bounces at xmpp.org
> [mailto:standards-bounces at xmpp.org] On Behalf Of Yann Biancheri
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2008 11:44 AM
> To: XMPP Extension Discussion List
> Cc: joonas at uwc.net
> Subject: [Standards] Best approach for Shared XML editing
> 
> Hi everybody,
> 
> We are looking at ways to implement whiteboarding over XMPP and we've 
> found lots of interesting proposals in the community already. We are 
> particularly interested in the sxe [1] and sxde [2] ones. It seems 
> that sxde has been written first and has leads to sxe. What we like 
> with sxde is that it is less verbose than sxe since you can directly 
> add an xml element qualified with it's namespaces, attributes, 
> contents whereas in sxe you would have to issue one command to create 
> the element, and one for each of the attributes which in the end 
> result in a lot of xml to send in the XMPP band. On the other hand, 
> sxe is more recent, seems cleaner and more generic.
> We were wondering if there were any other reasons such as protocol 
> flaws behind the move from sxde to sxe?  Or if we could use one or the

> other eitherway?
> Thanks a lot for the feedback
> 
> - Yann
> 
> [1] http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/sxe.html
> [2] http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/sxde.html
> 



More information about the Standards mailing list