[Standards] About stream namespaces

Carlo v. Loesch CvL at mail.symlynX.com
Sat Mar 17 16:14:45 UTC 2007

Oh please, why do you try to argue if you have no arguements?

Thomas Charron typeth:
|   No one.  Just as no one posts a link to it on slashdot when after 11
| years, a 1.0 is released.

There hasn't been a 1.0 release.

Would you argue XEROX was a failure because it invented the mouse and
the graphical user interface, then others made the money with it?
Would you say there was nothing to learn in the design of betamax,
just because VHS became more popular?

|   Because an individuals presence changes 100 times a day, while they
| may only have 2 or 3 chat conversations.

You have not read and understood. Those 60% overhead are unnecessary
redundant packets, not many packets.

|   You HARDLY have a 12 year head start over Jabber.  I know, this
| entire message is a flamed response to a flame pst to begin with, but
| this is ridiculous.

I started redesigning chat technology in 1988. So you are correct, it
is only ten years.

|   I'd bet you a beelion dollars that none of your servers is coming
| close to the traffic that..  You know what, it isn't even worth the
| conversation.

Yes, ejabberd handles 6000 simulated web users in their new prototype.
psyced has seen real world webchat applications of several ten thousand
ten years ago.

|   Physced was built to be a replacement for IRC.

Crap. The PSYC specs published in 1995 already contained the concepts
of decentralized independent servers, uniforms (the next step beyond
jids) and much more. There was nothing new in Jabber technologically.
The brilliant idea about Jabber was that it ignored a few design
problems and went ahead with a very simple plan - and it worked,

|   All of your reasons why XML is a bad idea are not why XML is bad,
| but why rfc822 is good.

With the same end result. Even rfc822 is a better choice.

More information about the Standards mailing list