[standards-jig] Checking for implementations
dave at dave.tj
Thu Apr 18 04:26:15 UTC 2002
Grrr ... pub/sub is _not_ specialized - it's the most generalized form of IM that I'm aware of.
Sorry for blurting that out,
Dave Cohen <dave at dave.tj>
Iain Shigeoka wrote:
> On 4/16/02 8:45 PM, "David Waite" <mass at akuma.org> wrote:
> > Of course, I make no secret that I dislike browse. It is directory
> > services and pub/sub and introspection (and even feature negotiation, by
> > some people's definition) all rolled into a tiny ball. I've always
> > gotten the feeling that a large part of its design was based solely on
> > the need for a better agents retrieval mechanism and a better way of
> > representing users in a groupchat. But I am perfectly happy to help get
> > it accepted as a standard; then the community can decide if they need
> > something greater later on down the line we can always transition - we
> > would already have to do transitioning if that something greater was
> > available today.
> I'll throw my hat in with you David. In addition to your points of
> contention, one of my problems with browse and several other protocols is
> that they seem torn between a design for generic use and particular
> applications. This results in a very inconsistent feel to the protocol, and
> to implementations taking one approach or the other leading to them being
> compatible but practically unrecognizable as the same protocol.
> It would seem we should either be specifying very particular, application
> specific protocols (like message and presence) or purely generic protocols
> with particular use cases in well-known application areas (browse and the
> pub-sub stuff going on now seem like good candidates here).
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
More information about the Standards