[Standards] Re: Inband Images

JD Conley jd.conley at coversant.net
Wed Mar 28 21:57:00 UTC 2007


> > I agree with Richard here. We should just use one method and a
> > bytestream with a hash is at the top of my list. Like I mentioned in
> my
> > last post, there's no reason we can't just use a long lived IBB and
a
> > queue (or for the more adventurous a long lived p2p connection of
> some
> > sort).
> 
> Yea although it would be better to use a method a far less verbose
than
> the si-pub method, thats so big that the xml could possibly end up
> being
> bigger than some of the smaller images, something nice and simple just
> specifying the hash would be better, with optional attributes to
> specify
> such things as an alternate source JID to retrieve it from or things
> like the content type of the image.

Agreed again with a slight tweak. I'd specify a whole new URI rather
than JID. The id of the file transfer is really up to the host. If we
have emoticon themes in our client software we probably want the default
URI to be at emoticons at soapbox.net and the secondary to be the sender
(so we only have half the bandwidth cost usually).

-JD



More information about the Standards mailing list