[standards-jig] Constraining standards?

Germán de la Cruz german.delacruz at samsistemas.com.ar
Tue Jan 22 18:22:13 UTC 2002

Hello all,

In the emoticons topic, i´m with you. I think that emoticons are a ¨inner¨
standart in internet.
I think that with a minimun coherence we can interpretate it in an uniform
way. I don´t think it must be a jabber standart.

But i think that the server-side blocking is necesary. It a natural advance
in the jabber protocol.

Other think I consider necesary is to put a <name> value into the precense
protocol. It is to consider than the user could want to indicate the name
that he want for his represent the roster of his buddies.

I think that the protocol must cover all thinks to bring it to an robust
standart, because if we start to make server with particular thinks, the
standart will dead. I think that we must be clever enought to capture this
necesary thinks and put it in the protocol.

What do you think?


Iain Shigeoka wrote:

> Hello all,
> I've been reading the discussions on server-based privacy, and the talk on
> jdev about formatting (and emoticons) and am starting to feel like Jabber
> approaching a critical juncture.  So this email is a question of whether
> anyone else has noticed it, if I'm imagining everything, and if it is
> significant.
> My feeling is that Jabber is getting to a point where we must decide where
> the Jabber standards end and "implementation specific issues" begins.
> take server-based privacy as an example.  Is that really something that
> should be in the Jabber standards?  Or should that be an implementation
> specific issue.  Shouldn't we let individual server implementations decide
> about whether to offer the feature and provide their own tools for
> providing, administering, etc that feature?
> If we do allow server-based privacy, shouldn't we specify how to
> user messaging limitations (like bandwidth throttling) as a Jabber
> How about limiting other resources like the number of simultaneous logins
> allowed by a single user account?  How about server administration?  How
> about server installation and deployment?  Where do we end?
> On the client side, things are also slipping into what I consider
> implementation specific details.  A jabber standard on emoticons?  Is that
> really necessary?  Shouldn't we allow clients to do whatever they want
> inside of messages?
> I always envisioned it as a market share issue and not a Jabber standard
> problem.  The client can add these features (like emoticons) as they see
> and their own users will see these advanced features.  If others "chase
> lights" they can emulate the same support until it becomes a de facto
> standard...  However, until that time, I don¹t think there is any reason
> a Jabber standard per se.
> I know the argument.  We want to provide a "uniform user experience" when
> accessing Jabber.  I should be able to specify a smiley on the "client by
> Foo Co" and see it on the "client by Bar Inc" exactly the same.  But is
> really what we want?
> My analogy is between Posix and Windows.  Posix is a minimum specification
> for how an operating system works.  Kernel interfaces, etc.  There is an
> extension that describes a very minimal (shell + ultra-basic tools) user
> access to the system.  And that's it.
> Windows is also a specification for how an operating system works.
> in the interests of providing a uniform user experience, it enforces look
> and feel, workflow, a large number of user tools, etc.  It worries about
> things like how emoticons look and how buttons click.
> Do we want Jabber to be a standard that is more Posix or Windows?  Please
> try to avoid any bias against the latter for reasons that extend beyond
> way its used in this metaphor.  There is a lot of good that can come from
> specifying everything down to how emoticons look.  Take the AOL dominance
> the online market as an example.
> I personally like a minimalist standard that provides the maximum
> flexibility for implementation variations that can give people competitive
> advantages.  I'd rather not see Jabber become one uniform, look alike,
> alike system.  I want to see one developer espousing the benefits of their
> server's blacklisting, while another shouting the benefits of their
> whitelisting system and another saying that neither works, and only its
> advanced anti-spam expert system can provide the level of comfort you
> Thoughts?
> -iain

More information about the Standards mailing list