[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


More information about the Standards mailing list