On 06/03/2011 12:01 AM, Arc Riley wrote: > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Sergey Dobrov <bin...@jrudevels.org > <mailto:bin...@jrudevels.org>> wrote: > > I agree but if file attachment already in XEP we have to specify how > client could upload it. Am I wrong? > > > The XEP is in "experimental" status, something being in the current XEP > does not mean it must remain there. > > I believe that file attachements are out of scope for microblogging. > Most microblogging services do not support it, it breaks the whole > concept of "140 characters or less". If you want to "attach" a photo, > upload it to the web somewhere and include the URL, same as if your > microblog were an oggcast or bittorrent feed. I agree that attachments are ambiguous but I don't agree that we should restrict users with "140 chars or less". XEP doesn't restrict that and I think that's a good decision because restrictions are bad idea for user always. We want to create transports to other microblogging networks and they can have other restrictions so if we will no have any restrictions then we will able to use any network. Also, XEP defines xhtml content in summary now. And I think that this is the right decision too.
> > If you'd like to handle file uploads and albums via XMPP then use an > existing extension for file uploads to a service. It doesn't need to be > specified here just because Jappix supports it. This extension already > risks being too complex for wide scale implementation. Agreed. So we should remove file attachments from XEP, I think. -- With best regards, Sergey Dobrov, XMPP Developer and JRuDevels.org founder.
