2015-12-14 16:16 GMT+00:00 Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net>: > > > No, you cannot have an arbitrary XEP-0045 service also presented over this > protocol; it has to be a cut-down, especially written service. The result > is that existing '45 features are lost entirely. >
The service identifies itself as <feature var='urn:xmpp:muclight:0'/> over disco-info. Not sure where any confusion could come up here. > Mobile-friendly is fine, mobile-only is not. > It is not mobile only, there is absolutely nothing that would prevent a desktop client from implementing that protocol. > > The point of XMPP is extensibility - by blocking off extensibility because > you don't think the existing cases are important enough, you're also > blocking off use-cases none of us have thought of. > The intention of this proposal is to resemble functionality that's present in competing products like Whatsapp et al at a level that's as simple as possible to implement, esp when focusing on clients. Mobile clients, sure. It is by no means undermining the extensibility of XMPP, all it does is exposing a reduced set of functionality as found in MUC over its own new(!) namespace while reusing parts of things found in MUC for ease of implementation. It is not meant as a replacement for MUC, nor is it meant to block or stop any other efforts to come to a more generalized solution to the same problem. But it is an ad-hoc approach that solves a problem right now. At the protocol level as implementation wise (since we have one for MongooseIM). It documents what we actually do. And I don't see where it does any harm (because it sounds so at times). Cheers, Stefan
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
