[Standards] Entity Capabilities Woes
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
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