[Standards] whiteboarding and shared editing

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Wed Aug 15 21:20:59 UTC 2007

Boyd Fletcher wrote:
> On 8/15/07 4:12 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
>> Joonas got his approach working in Psi during the Summer of Code last year.
> did that ever get published and included in Psi. I doesn't appear in the Mac
> version.

I don't know the status of that code. It may have been a plugin, not
part of the mainline code, since whiteboarding is not typically of
general interest to regular IM users. And note that Psi 0.11 has been
held up for a long time because of Qt4 dependencies.

>> Ian has a working implementation of whiteboarding in Chatterbox.
> cool.
>> Mats has had a working implementation of whiteboarding in Coccinella for
>> years now.
> true but if memory serves its not SVG based.

But Mats contributed to some of the standardization work on XML

>> None of which is directly relevant to the standardization process. Do we
>> publish them all as Informational specs and let the market decide? That
>> is not standardization, that is an abdication of standardization.
>> Peter
> the market drives many of the standards today and that isn't necessarily a
> bad thing since customers are buying the companies' products so the
> companies have a good understanding of the wants and needs of the users.

Some people think that such "market-driven standardization" is another
name for buying your way in.

> However, that being said it is also good to have some independence from the
> market. But developing standards that aren't viable for people too implement
> doesn't do anyone any good. So we need to have a careful balance.

On what basis do you say that a generalized XML synchronization and
editing protocol is not viable? Do you have specific criticisms of
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/sxde.html or suggestions for
improvement? Those would be appreciated.

> I think it would be good for the community for Mats and Ian to document what
> they have done so that the four implementations can be compared. 

Mats and Ian have both contributed to the XML synchronization / shared
XML editing approach in previous email threads. Whether that means they
would upgrade their code to use that approach (or whatever approach
results from our standardization work) is for them to say.

> That is how
> they do it in the W3 

We don't know how the W3C does things since we can't afford to pay tens
of thousands of dollars a year to participate. We prefer to follow the
IETF example around here, if an example must be followed. At least the
IETF functions in an open manner.

But perhaps you can share with us some of your experience contributing
to W3C activities so that we can understand more of how they work.

> and they are pretty successful at publishing usable
> standards.

It is an open question whether W3C standards are usable. Certainly REX
was not usable (caused by their patent policy). I'm not seeing a lot of
uptake for things like WSDL, GRDDL, XForms, XML 1.1, or XHTML 2.0 either
(at least not in domains that people in the XMPP community care about).
And don't even get me started on the whole WS-* stack!


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/d1a01d2e/attachment.bin>

More information about the Standards mailing list