3 ms·
> Like any federated protocol, extensions don't mean much unless everyone applies them, and that's an almost impossible task in a truly federated landscape. Wha
by drdaeman 10y ago
> Like any federated protocol, extensions don't mean much unless everyone applies them, and that's an almost impossible task in a truly federated landscape. What we have instead is a complicated morass of XEPs that aren't consistently applied anywhere.
The problem is, without actual numbers - how many clients support what - this statement is just a personal opinion, not a rule.
We can say exactly the same about the web. It's also federated, it also has fractured client support (although, sadly, core engines can be counted on fingers) and it's also full of extensions. While I won't praise the web, and I'll surely admit that the trends for siloing are strong (for many, a single big social network site of their choice is the "web"), it still manages to provide somehow decent user experience.
- choosername 10y agoThere is the w3 and other standards comitties joined by industrie leaders and a lot of experts and public eyeballs. Chat hardly compares. Perhaps the W3 should concern itself with chat. The IETF released SIP. The w3c offers IRC channels. A broken browser is a pain, new standars improve the user experience (e.g. html video). For the public user there is no discernable difference in any basic chat's protocol and implemetation.
- andrey_utkin 10y agoIETF has also standartized XMPP.