[Foundation] Controversial?

Joe Hildebrand hildjj at cursive.net
Wed Aug 13 09:49:37 CDT 2003


Doesn't sound controversial to me for the opposite reason.

http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0111.html

-- 
Joe Hildebrand
Denver, CO, USA



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Lin [mailto:mikelin at MIT.EDU] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 7:38 AM
> To: members at jabber.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation] Controversial?
> 
> 
> this should not be a very controversial proposal because it's not 
> really possible. xmpp as it exists today cannot practically 
> be used to 
> transport realtime binary payloads of any considerable size. the 
> argument has been around for a long time, if you do some homework in 
> the standards-jig and jdev archives i'm sure you'll find it 
> many times 
> over.
> 
> -mike
> 
> On Wednesday, August 13, 2003, at 03:11  AM, Ulrich B. 
> Staudinger wrote:
> 
> > Hi members,
> >
> > <flame secure>
> > Ok, this can be somewhat risky and quite somewhat controversial. I
> > think
> > jabber should develop on. We have a very good instant messaging
> > protocol, some issues are still in development (like pubsub 
> and message
> > reliability), but are definitely on the right track.
> >
> > But i have a real proposal - add video and audio streams - 
> and add it 
> > now and not in a year. i have no jep at hand yet, but this is 
> > definitely a must. other instant messaging services are under 
> > development and will clearly be as good as jabber sooner or later - 
> > but all of these miss one
> > feature: video and audio through server. h323 for example 
> is definitely
> > not very firewall friendly, endpoints have to 'see' each other.
> >
> > Now jabber could fill this gap and move forward to embed video and
> > audio
> > streams into the protocol and into the server/client (not p2p)
> > environment. Good and work proven server implementations 
> exist, as do
> > good jabber clients! Why is jabber not moving? 'Cause we jabber too 
> > much.
> >
> > This enhancement clearly is required - it will open up big gates.
> >
> > Maybe some key questions: Should jabber incorporate video and audio 
> > streams into an existing connection? Should there be a taskforce of 
> > jabberoos taking care of this? Does all this make sense? Or should 
> > jabber simply stay the good old xml messaging and presence protocol?
> >
> > </flame secure>
> >
> > ulrich
> >
> > --
> > Ulrich B. Staudinger
> > http://www.die-horde.de
> > email: us at die-horde.de
> > jid: uls at jabber.org
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Members mailing list
> > Members at jabber.org
> > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> 



More information about the Members mailing list