[Standards] Entity Capabilities Woes

Ryan ryan at evine.ca
Wed Mar 14 22:59:50 UTC 2007

On Wednesday 14 March 2007 13:58, Rachel Blackman wrote:
> I'm assuming that the #ftrans/#xmpp-ftrans and the psi-im.org/caps
> versus exodus.jabberstudio.org/caps stuff is all just typos, likewise
> the inclusion of xhtml-im in an 'ftrans' bundle.
Wow, I really screwed that up!  I'm glad you were able to sort it out.

> But this still makes for an example.  What if we do decide down the
> tables.
While I can think of some solutions to the proposed issues, it still ends up 
being just as (ok ok, more) complicated then what we already have (caps). All 
for what, a little bandwidth? I think badwidth issues would need to be solved 
more globally to be of any real use anyway. 
Sorry Mark, I tried, but I think it's worth the work to implement it.

As an aside:
The mention of IMAP reminded me of my foray into trying to implement the 
server side of that protocol, and the pain and frustration came back. IMAP is 
a great example of how poor flexability is caused by convenient shortcuts, 
which makes it very hard to add new functionality cleanly. (Actually, I 
disoverd Jabber/XMPP when I began to look for an alternative to IMAP.)

> But throwing out caps and starting over seems like a waste.  It's
> here, it works fine, it's nicely extensible, and I really think
> there's other things we could spend our time and energy sorting out
> that are more crucial to the success of Jabber/XMPP/XIM/
> InsertIMNameHere.  Getting PEP actually implemented in servers,
> sorting out the conflicting file transfer specifications, things like
> that. ;)



More information about the Standards mailing list