Hi everyone,
Excuse me for the impertinence, but I needed to ask: why "muclight" and not
"muclite"?
One byte is one byte! In addition, "lite" is better understood for lightness
(small weight) than "light", that is likely to be confused with the brightness
emitted by the sun and glowing objects, IMHO.
Best,
Adán
-------- Mensaje original --------
De: Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net>
Fecha:14/12/2015 07:09 PM (GMT+01:00)
Para: XMPP Standards <standards@xmpp.org>
Cc:
Asunto: Re: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Multi-User Chat Light
On 14 December 2015 at 17:08, Stefan Strigler <stefan.strig...@gmail.com>
wrote: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.The two are a subtly different model. You cannot have a full
XEP-0045 room also exposed by this protocol, and exposing this protocol by '45
would force some limitations on how '45 operated (such as refusing certain
affiliation changes, etc).Yes, of course you can implement both on different
servers. 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. Sure, but it is entirely and completely focussed on
the current state of mobile to the exclusion of all else. 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). It causes harm by balkanization - the part of
my message you stripped out before replying.That's not to say that you
shouldn't implement something along these lines, of course - you can do
whatever you want - but I don't think it's suitable for general
standardization.In particular, I'd want something that supports the same
requirements as this but also can support the existing ones and additional
requirements currently unmet by '45. Cheers, Stefan
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info:
http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe:
standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
_______________________________________________
