[Standards] Inband Images

JD Conley jd.conley at coversant.net
Tue Mar 27 23:02:03 UTC 2007


I guess if the resource were stored at an http url that'd be fine. But
for xmpp iri's and SI-Pub we already have the image hash available for
the file transfer stuff, so why not publish it too?

-JD

> -----Original Message-----
> From: standards-bounces at xmpp.org [mailto:standards-bounces at xmpp.org]
On
> Behalf Of Joe Hildebrand
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:38 PM
> To: XMPP Extension Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [Standards] Inband Images
> 
> 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