Daniel Henninger wrote: >> I don't disagree from the client perspective. But my philosophy has >> always been to make XMPP as great as it can be, then everyone else will >> eventually decide that they need to use XMPP and not some proprietary >> garbage. > > I won't get into my diatribe about why I think that will never happen. > Aside from saying why are people still using IE6 and even IE5? ;) I've > always been a big proponent of "let them use what they want, we'll do what > we can do make the world able to communicate better". That doesn't mean > trying to tell someone "your client blows, use this instead". Personally I > see no problem with transport work as part of the GSoC. HOWEVER I do agree > that, to me, the greater spirit of the XMPP involvement would be to learn > more about XMPP and improve upon it directly. Can that be done by improving > upon existing transports? Maybe. "In an ideal world", it could be awefully > nice to see a project in which some sort of XEP gets implemented and > improved upon, or some sort of new XEP concept gets written.
Really I have nothing against transports. However, my focus is on making native XMPP technologies as powerful as possible. Personally I'd rather support some fun project like MSN-like emoticons over XMPP than just bridge to a closed technology. But that's just my opinion. :) > Either way, the PyMSNt project idea could always be suggested over in the > Python GSoC stuff as well. True. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
