Erich Schubert wrote: > What has become of our goal of having clear-cut definitions of everything? > Maybe use "messaging" or so. But IMHO "instant messaging" is not > clearly cut at all. > You can transfer files, make video calls, voice calls, send SMS... > Oh, and does an SMS tool qualify as IM? Does IRC qualify as IM? Why not?
Does the video-conferencing etcetera go via the same MSN (or ICQ, or whatever) server, as part of the same protocol? Or does it use a separate, unrelated protocol (port number, etc)? If the former, then the situation is clear enough: the protocols we call "Instant Messaging" have simply extended their functions. This is nothing new - compare http. Flash animations aren't hypertext, but they go via the "HyperText Transfer Protocol". The name has become inappropriate, but that's just the way the world is. If the latter, then the situation is different: it means that there are software packages that give access to IM protocols _plus_ video-conferencing protocols. Either way, it still remains true that MSN, ICQ and so on are related, and that people will want to search for the general category of IM software. So we want a protocol::im: family. -- JBR Ankh kak! (Ancient Egyptian blessing) _______________________________________________ Debtags-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debtags-devel
