On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Curtis King <ck...@mumbo.ca> wrote: > I like to avoid adding protocol extensions which become abandoned.
I agree with you, but Carbons is already implemented widely, so I'm not sure that it's likely to just disappear any time soon. If MAM actually had enough functionality to replace carbons, I'd be all for deprecating it, but since it doesn't Carbons solves a separate set of problems. > So, how does carbons handle this common case. I’m having a conversation on > my mobile and want to move to my desktop. But, my desktop has been offline. It doesn't, MAM solves this. Carbons only solves the case where you have multiple clients online, and you want to switch between them. On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Steve Kille <steve.ki...@isode.com> wrote: > So, we recognize that Carbons has “holes”. It would seem useful to list > the holes, and see if they can: > > 1. Be (sensibly) addressed in Carbons ; or > > 2. Be explicitly considered to be not worth addressing; or > > 3. Better addressed another way > > Do we have a list of the “holes”? If not, I think this is worth > compiling. Agreed. For the record, the main reason I like Carbons and am all for advancing it is that it's small, self contained, and solves a single problem well. I see this as a huge swing in favor of advancement. To keep the other thread on topic, I've split this off. I'd love to formally put the advancement of carbons on the agenda. Thoughts from the community/council? —Sam -- Sam Whited pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3 https://blog.samwhited.com
