[Standards] Inband Images

Joe Hildebrand hildjj at gmail.com
Tue Mar 27 22:38:08 UTC 2007


Isn't this what HTTP ETags are for?

On Mar 26, 2007, at 3:08 PM, JD Conley wrote:

> It would be especially interesting if we included the hash of the  
> image
> directly in the xhtml so, like in the case of emoticons, if it were
> already available locally no external requests would be required.
>
>
>
> -JD
>
>
>
> From: standards-bounces at xmpp.org [mailto:standards- 
> bounces at xmpp.org] On
> Behalf Of JD Conley
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 12:22 PM
> To: XMPP Extension Discussion List
> Subject: RE: [Standards] Inband Images
>
>
>
> Right, though usually there is no need to send the actual image  
> (say you
> are using the same software, sharing the same themes). SI-Pub is
> interesting because with 0096 you have a md5 hash of the file. So, if
> you already have the emoticon cached locally you don't have to  
> download
> it again.
>
>
>
> -JD
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: standards-bounces at xmpp.org on behalf of Andreas Monitzer
> Sent: Mon 3/26/2007 12:19 PM
> To: XMPP Extension Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [Standards] Inband Images
>
> On Mar 26, 2007, at 20:10, JD Conley wrote:
>
>> Using iri's like this is ideal IMHO.... It's very html/http-like
>> (aka people are used to it) and leads to all kinds of interesting
>> possibilities.
>>
>> In our current implementation we use a long lived Inband-Bytestream
>> for conversations and send the whole message in an IBB with the
>> image encoded in-line. We call this a "DirectConnect" bytestream.
>> It's a profile on 0095 for sending very large stanzas (any stanza)
>> out of band from point to point.
>
> Wouldn't it be easier to just use a data-url for the image? That
> already works with the current xhtml-xmpp spec.
> (only for small images, though, but this would be ideal for emoticons)
>
>
> andy
>




More information about the Standards mailing list