On 2012-07-23 21:17, Mark Rejhon wrote:
Example 1: I suggest that this could be better demonstrated by not
cutting at the word boundaries "He", "llo, m", "y Juliet!" maybe, or
something like that. Experience and/or cynicism say that implementers
are quite likely to look at the examples, ignore the text, and
misunderstand what's going on if the examples provide convenient
semantics not required by the protocol.
[Comment]
I don't like this change. Are you sure?
In some earlier messages, I mentioned that word transmission is
**greatly preferable* *to broken-word transmission.
Also, if an implementer misunderstands, this detail is a more harmless
misunderstanding than broken-word transmission.
There are other examples in the spec.
Comments welcome from people other than Kevin and Gunnar -- I need
more comments because I have comments that they prefer this
Introduction, so I need to reconcile conflicting advice about the
Introductory example. XEP-0301 permits you to transmit real-time text
any way you want: character-at-a-time, word-at-a-time, word bursts,
original typing intervals, time-smoothed, etc. The Introductory
Example is unable to demonstrate all of the possible methods. IMHO, I
chose the 'safest' introductory example.
Again, word transmission is greatly preferable over broken-word
transmission. (There's been arguments in some accessibility
organizations in some countries, some say they prefer keypress
intervals, some prefer word transmission instead of keypresses, etc.)
I am talking to a guy from a telco in UK, and he informed me of a
political debate.
Can at least a few more "outsiders" comment on this change, please?
Thanks :-)
I have also noticed occasional theoretical discussions about word
transmission instead of real-time text. But that just introduces delays.
Long words can take long time to type on small devices, and many times
you have benefit of seeing the word created in real-time so that you can
keep your mind in sync with the sender.
Even if it could be mentioned somewhere, the spec is about real-time
text, and the first example, showing the very basic features shall also
show a realistic example of transmitting real-time text. Not word-by-word.
Word-by-word also have the risk of delaying the last typed word from
being transmitted. It must have some inactivity timeout and transmit
whatever is typed if the user just stops typing at the end of a word
without any space or punctuation mark. In order to not interfere with
slow typing, a timeout should likely be in the order of 7 seconds. That
is an unfortunate extra delay in these circumstances.
Please accept the proposals for the first example being a real-time text
example.
Gunnar
