[Standards] 2017 Compliance Suites

Sam Whited sam at samwhited.com
Sun Jan 29 14:38:56 UTC 2017


On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 7:14 AM, Georg Lukas <georg at op-co.de> wrote:
> Seriously though, avatars require a graphical display and additional
> bandwidth, so they can't be implemented in certain situations (think
> console clients, or the military 9k6 links mentioned here from time to
> time). We shouldn't prevent these implementation from achieving "core
> client" status.

It's just an informational set of compliance suites; if people *can't*
implement them, obviously they won't. If the XSF were ever to do any
sort of certification I'm sure they'd understand why a terminal client
couldn't implement avatars. In the end it's not that important; it's
just a set of recommendations to help make things more interoperable;
if something is missing one or two for a legit reason, it's not the
end of the world.

Specifically for the IM suites I'm only really considering what
consumers will want from a personal communication product; so it's not
guaranteed to fit your business or government needs. Those things
should just do whatever makes sense for their business or use case
anyways.

—Sam


More information about the Standards mailing list