[Standards] Simple Jingle example(s) and spec(s) wanted

Justin Karneges justin-keyword-jabber.093179 at affinix.com
Wed Feb 7 07:21:41 UTC 2007

On Monday 05 February 2007 3:56 pm, Rachel Blackman wrote:
> Maybe I'm overreacting, but I'm already seeing a place down the road
> where we have multiple incompatible file transfer methods, and that's
> not going to help client interoperability.  If I create a new client
> from scratch, do I implement Jingle and the associated file transfer,
> and just ignore stream profiles?  Do I stick to the widely-
> implemented stream profile method, and ignore Jingle's FT?  Do I have
> to implement BOTH, and try to transparently hide from the user which
> is being used?

XEP-96 is the standard.  This is what you implement for file transfer.  If you 
want to implement something else, by all means have fun with it, but you 
absolutely must implement XEP-96 also.  We have standards for a reason.

I don't see a problem with extensions or alternative mechanisms, as long as we 
don't forget our standards.

Psi, for example, has a custom extension to S5B to allow role reversal, which 
essentially turns S5B into ICE.  This allows for a much greater success rate 
than a typical S5B transfer, as Remko mentions.  But here's the 
_big_huge_massive_point_ that must not be overlooked: Psi is 100% compatible 
with plain S5B.

I mean, this is really simple concept.  You want XHTML-IM?  Fine, but you 
better be able to do plaintext also.

With this in mind, there is really no problem with developing a Jingle File 
Transfer.  What *is* a problem is when the standards are ignored.  If file 
transfer compatibility is desired between Google Talk and other XMPP clients, 
well, it is quite clear what must be done.


More information about the Standards mailing list