[Standards] whiteboarding and shared editing

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Wed Aug 15 17:54:09 UTC 2007

Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Wed Aug 15 17:40:22 2007, Ian Paterson wrote:
>> Greg Hudson wrote:
>>> A generic XML editor isn't going to know much about the semantics of the
>>> document it is editing.  It's not necessarily going to be a good
>>> framework for a whiteboarding application, any more than emacs is a good
>>> foundation for Photoshop.  They both edit files, but...
> [...]
>> I would have thought that, a *very low level* synchronised XML editing
>> protocol suitable for SVG documents could be very similar to, for
>> example, one for XHTML documents.
>> 1. What significant differences do people see between two such
>> *lowest* level protocols?
>> 2. Could those differences be optional parts of a single low-level
>> protocol?
>> 3. What specific real-world disadvantages do people see if we use a
>> single low level building-block protocol?
> I have to say, my suspicion is that these kinds of questions would be
> far easier to answer if we developed an SVG protocol and an XHTML
> protocol, then looked for points of similarity. Trying to create an
> abstract protocol out of nowhere is going to be tricky, and as Greg
> suggested, quite possibly it'll go nowhere.

Quite possibly. :) And yes it would be good to have two or more examples
from which to abstract. SVG and XHTML are probably good candidates.

> In particular, I'd welcome the Council reinstating 

We can't "reinstate" something that has not yet been published. :)

> the SVG XEP 

Which one?

We have:

1. http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/sxde.html plus

2. http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/whiteboard2.html

> as an
> experimental protocol, 

Unlike the IETF, we don't have the concept of an "Experimental" spec.
The closest we come is Informational specs. More here:


We could always add another XEP type if needed, though.

> and encouraging people to consider the XHTML
> case. I'd suggest attempting the latter by considering adaptations of
> the SVG spec to handle XHTML instead, then consider how to re-unify
> them, but even a wholly distinct effort would go a long way to getting a
> unified XML realtime collaborative editing protocol done.



Peter Saint-Andre

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7354 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070815/618914d5/attachment.bin>

More information about the Standards mailing list