[Standards] Whiteboard XEP, Gajim and GSoC2008

Joonas Govenius joonas.govenius at gmail.com
Sun Mar 2 23:15:56 UTC 2008


Hi Mateusz,

Mateusz Biliński wrote:
> * there were a few attempts to build a specification. I list them
> below in the order (I think) they've appeared:
>
> The oldest (last update:2001) approach to specify a standard for
> whiteboard (I don't suppose this is used. but I'm not sure):
> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/whiteboard2.html
>
>   
I believe the authors of the proto-XEP still use something based on it.
> XEP-0113: Simple Whiteboarding (this one's deferred)
> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0113.html
>
> An SVG Based Whiteboard Format (this could be used with the next one
> -sxde - to build a standarized whiteboard?):
> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/whiteboard.html
>
>   
Correct. This just defines how the whiteboard should be represented in XML.

However, no one actually uses this particular format at the moment. The 
only implementation that uses SXE (Psi) uses a regular SVG 1.1 document 
right now (no pages, etc).
> Shared XML Document Editing (a generalized approach, I suppose this
> one was substituted by the next one):
> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/sxde.html
>
>   
Correct.
> Shared XML Editing (This is by far the most recent approach - this is
> going to a fundamental standard for all applications of shared XML
> editing. This is the one that team is currently working on.):
> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/sxe.html
>
>   
It's the most recent approach and Psi currently implements this version 
almost exactly except for the negotiation part, which doesn't yet use 
Jingle.

It _could_ serve as the fundamental protocol for all applications that 
need to share an XML document. However, so far the Council hasn't 
accepted any of the proto-XEPs so who knows what _will_ happen...
> * stated above there are two types of discussions around:
>   - whether the 'shared XML editing' isn't too generalized approach
> for whiteboard (but AFAIK this SXE would only be a common _base part_
> for all    applications that would use shared editing - or am I
> wrong?)
>   - how to solve concurrency problems, especially when users attempt
> to edit the same object in parallel
>
> I think this would be it. Maybe I have missed something - if so,
> please point this out.
>
> Finally here are my two questions:
> - what is currently _the best way_ to implement whiteboard (in this
> case in Gajim). Should it be based on SX(D)E? Or maybe it should be
> based on currently working implementations in other clients so that it
> could interoperate with them? (I guess the first one is more sensible
> in current situation)
> - what are the chances that this project will be chosen by XSF for
> GSoC2008. What I am worried about is whether currently there is any
> sense in implementing this if there is no official specification for
> whiteboard. What I mean is that I would really like to do this, but
> what is XSF opinion about this.
>
> My current proposal would be to implement SX(D)E in Gajim as
> whiteboard and point out pitfalls that I fall in to during coding
> which could help build a specification draft. But I suppose Jonnas
> Govenius is working on this in Psi, so this falls back again to the
> question: is this project sensible for GSoC in XSF opinion.
>
>   
I suppose these last questions are a little off topic for the list but 
I'm very curious about the answers myself. In fact, I'd like to work on 
this stuff again for GSoC but I have a feeling the Council will want to 
give the chance to someone new (like you!)...

Joonas




More information about the Standards mailing list