[Standards] whiteboarding and shared editing

Bishop, Michael W. CONTR J9C880 Michael.Bishop at je.jfcom.mil
Thu Aug 16 17:58:40 UTC 2007


> Right. Probably the biggest difference between the two proposed
approaches is the reliance on server-side
> support.
> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/whiteboard2.html requires
server-side support while sxde tries to
> allow sessions 1-to-1 and in MUC rooms and includes the possibility of
specific server-side support merely
> as an optional enchancement to lessen some of the requirements on the
clients.

Just to clarify, server-side support is needed for MUC rooms only; not
for 1-to-1 sessions.

Michael Bishop

-----Original Message-----
From: standards-bounces at xmpp.org [mailto:standards-bounces at xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Joonas Govenius
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 1:45 PM
To: XMPP Extension Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Standards] whiteboarding and shared editing

On 8/16/07, Bishop, Michael W. CONTR J9C880
<Michael.Bishop at je.jfcom.mil> wrote:
> While reading some of the discussions on this topic in the list, I 
> realized that our protocol shares some of the same characteristics.
> While it was designed specifically for whiteboarding using SVG as a 
> medium, the protocol itself does not deal with SVG.  The manipulation 
> of the SVG document can be applied to any XML in any namespace.  While

> it's been written as a whiteboard protocol, nothing forces it to be 
> one.  It would work as-is as a shared XML document protocol with 
> permissions, history, current state, and presentation.

Right. Probably the biggest difference between the two proposed
approaches is the reliance on server-side support.
http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/whiteboard2.html requires
server-side support while sxde tries to allow sessions 1-to-1 and in MUC
rooms and includes the possibility of specific server-side support
merely as an optional enchancement to lessen some of the requirements on
the clients.



More information about the Standards mailing list