[Standards] Advancing Carbons [WAS: {Core|Advanced} {Client|Server} 2015]

Sam Whited sam at samwhited.com
Thu Jun 18 13:47:26 UTC 2015

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Curtis King <cking at mumbo.ca> wrote:
> I like to avoid adding protocol extensions which become abandoned.

I agree with you, but Carbons is already implemented widely, so I'm
not sure that it's likely to just disappear any time soon. If MAM
actually had enough functionality to replace carbons, I'd be all for
deprecating it, but since it doesn't Carbons solves a separate set of

> So, how does carbons handle this common case. I’m having a conversation on
> my mobile and want to move to my desktop. But, my desktop has been offline.

It doesn't, MAM solves this. Carbons only solves the case where you
have multiple clients online, and you want to switch between them.

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Steve Kille <steve.kille at isode.com> wrote:
> So, we recognize that Carbons has “holes”.   It would seem useful to list
> the holes, and see if they can:
> 1.         Be (sensibly) addressed in Carbons ; or
> 2.       Be explicitly considered to be not worth addressing; or
> 3.       Better addressed another way
> Do we have a list of the “holes”?   If not,  I think this is worth
> compiling.


For the record, the main reason I like Carbons and am all for
advancing it is that it's small, self contained, and solves a single
problem well. I see this as a huge swing in favor of advancement.

To keep the other thread on topic, I've split this off. I'd love to
formally put the advancement of carbons on the agenda. Thoughts from
the community/council?


Sam Whited
pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3

More information about the Standards mailing list