[Standards-JIG] avatars

Thomas Muldowney temas at box5.net
Fri Jul 2 15:38:14 UTC 2004

On Jul 2, 2004, at 6:49 AM, Richard Dobson wrote:

>> I see, that I did omit the hashes. Hashes are important and we use 
>> them
> heavily
>> exactly for what you say. My client fetches avatars from many users. 
>> This
> is done
>> only if the hash does not match. (These <obj/>s were just example 
>> what I
> mean
>> by harmonization. I did not propose the next protocol. They were for 
>> sure
> neither
>> complete   nor correct)
> Ok, good, yup the filehashes must stay.
>> Also there are obviously 2 notions of in-band here. I agree that data
> objects
>> should not be in-band when something (XHTML) is pushed. In this case 
>> there
>> should be the hash. Which is not there. I only see cid and id in
>>  <obj xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/iobj'/>. But if I decide to
> retrieve a data
>> object after  disco, checking for size, mime-type, etc. If I decide i 
>> want
> the data
>> object then I would like the idea to be able to have the data-object
> in-band in the
>> response. Please note that I am NOT pushing for in-band only. I am 
>> still
> trying to
>> get systematics into the way to request data objects in different 
>> Jabber
> sub-protocols.
> If you want to receive the object inband then you just follow it along 
> and
> at the file transfer stage just specify that you want it using IBB, 
> IMO it
> should be kept nice and layered like it is now re-using existing 
> protocols.
>> Yes in case of XHTML the author could simply put an HTTP URL. But this
> only
>> solves the problem for XHTML. Still avatars can not be fetched via 
>> HTTP.
> Avatars
>> over sipub is OK from client to client, but avatar galleries would 
>> work
> well with HTTP.
>> So how do you specify the HTTP URL for an avatar? And I repeat: 
>> avatars
> are just
>> the example. Soon we will design YAJP (yet another Jabber protocol), 
>> which
> retrieves
>> data objects via sipub, in-band or OOB. There will be a YAJP-Wiki and
> peopel will
>> discuss again the same issues as for avatars.
> Then maybe we need to extend obj slightly for more general use for HTTP
> URL's as follows
> <obj xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/iobj'
> id='552da749930852c69ae5d2141d3766b1' 
> src='http://jabber.org/image.gif'/>
>> So, there really should NOT be an avatar protocol. There should be a 
>> more
> general one.
>> A more general protocol means that it should support different 
>> methods in
> a harmonized
>> way. It will probably be just a wrapper for IBB, sipub, or XHTML-obj, 
>> and
> some disco.
>> Maybe some have to be adapted, maybe not. But if there is an avatar
> protocol, then we
>> will get YAJP soon after, which will be very similar.
> If you read my previous email you will see that there is no need to 
> invent a
> new generic wrapper as IMO our XHTML obj spec already provides a pretty
> generic framework, it is fine as a wrapper for file transfer (no need 
> to be
> a wrapper for IBB as by using filetransfer it will automatically pick 
> the
> appropriate transfer method be that OOB or IBB).
> Richard

I've been watching this off and on for the past few days, and I'm not 
really understanding where the discussion is going, primarily in 
relation to avatars.  What I took back from my last RFC on the avatar 
wiki was that we needed to figure out OOB, and I would prefer it to be 
in SI.  So then the only question is do we need a generic way to say "I 
know where you can get a chunk of data" in a generic way?  I'm not sure 
how much that actually gains since, using avatars as an example, we 
have an extremely simple wrapper for sipub to just give it a bit more 
context.  Sipub is doing the most of the work and is easy to have as a 
common impl.  So I guess I need clarification on how this is not 
already mostly generic?  It would be nice if some others would comment 
in here too, seems to be a 2 person conversation at this point.


More information about the Standards mailing list