[standards-jig] calendaring?

Julian Missig julian at jabber.org
Wed Mar 13 21:18:03 UTC 2002

Oh, yeah, definitely. But this browse method is something we could have
servers do right now without having to make a new protocol...

That said, yeah, I would love to see a routing protocol.

On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 16:08, Casey Crabb wrote:
> I think having the client tell the server where to route the packet 
> would probably be a more flexible way to go. Especially if the clients 
> could request a packet be sent to more than one client. Thats something 
> that I've wanted for a while. Of course having the client specify would 
> be more complicated and would require further additions to the protocol.
> Food for thought I guess.
> --
> Casey
> Julian Missig wrote:
> > That's where feature negotiation comes in. I'll write up some of my
> > ideas in more detail, but basically, even with simple browsing we could
> > have the server be properly routing this stuff... the server browses to
> > the clients as they connect, and if a message with an extension is sent
> > to the JID with no resource, the server will look at all the resources
> > for one which reports supporting that namespace.
> > 
> > Julian
> > 
> > On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 15:50, Dave wrote:
> > 
> >>The problem is that if you have a message-only Jabber client and a
> >>message-and-videoconferencing Jabber client, you have no way of telling
> >>the Jabber server that videoconferencing requests should be sent to
> >>your videoconferencing client, while text messages should be sent to
> >>your text-only client.  Now, if we add a calendaring client to the mix,
> >>we've just made our problem even bigger, because we have no way of
> >>telling the server to send calendaring events to our calendaring client.
> >>
> >>In other words, you're right: there's nothing "requiring" a Jabber client
> >>to implement a non-core feature (or even the "core" feature of text
> >>messaging), but if your client doesn't implement a particular feature,
> >>users of that client won't have an easy way of using that feature without
> >>opting for another client for _all_ their Jabber interaction.  THAT is
> >>what I'm referring to as the problem here.  I'm working on a solution
> >>with my Jabber proxy, but I'd like to see my proxy obsoleted by some
> >>server-side ability to route XML data to different resources based on
> >>rules submitted by the clients.  I'd like to have my calendaring Jabber
> >>"client" actually be a module in my calendaring application, designed
> >>to interact with the Jabber world.  I can then have a module in my
> >>calendaring application for email interfacing (which already has very
> >>impressive routing capabilities) too, as well as one for communicating
> >>over my cell phone.
> >>
> >>Dave Cohen <dave at dave.tj>
> >>
> >>
> >>Iain Shigeoka wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 3/5/02 8:42 AM, "Dave" <dcohen at ramapo.edu> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>If your goal is to be able to "chat" with your calendar, I'd strongly
> >>>>suggest using something like ChatBot, and simply making a scheduling
> >>>>plugin.  If your goal is to integrate scheduling functionality into
> >>>>a Jabber client, why not just embed a calendaring client (for some
> >>>>reasonably standardized scheduling protocol) into your Jabber client?
> >>>>As far as I can see, the more "stuff" we add to the Jabber protocol,
> >>>>the fewer choices we'll all have for fully-functional clients
> >>>>(since a "fully-functional" Jabber client will actually have to be a
> >>>>fully-functional video conferencing client, as well as a fully-functional
> >>>>scheduling client, as well as a fully-functional group management client,
> >>>>as well as, of course, a fully-functional IM client, and my experience
> >>>>
> >>>This is not the intent of the Jabber protocol setup.  Other than the basic
> >>>Jabber protocols, all other protocols are optional.  There may be
> >>>"competing" protocols which address the same problem in different ways.  As
> >>>long as you support the "core" jabber protocols, you are a "full jabber
> >>>client".  All extension protocols are designed to provide standard ways of
> >>>adding additional functionality.  They are not required or even suggested
> >>>for every client to implement.
> >>>
> >>>All this goes to say that within reason, the more protocols the better.  A
> >>>calendering protocol would be a nice addition.
> >>>
> >>>-iain
> >>>

More information about the Standards mailing list