4 ms·
I definitely agree that IRC would do well to have improvements, like an IRC/2.0 protocol. But no one is willing to get involved, likely because A) they don't w
by Svip 10y ago
I definitely agree that IRC would do well to have improvements, like an IRC/2.0 protocol. But no one is willing to get involved, likely because A) they don't want to develop a standard no one will use, B) get bogged in draft committees for years and C) they just aren't motivated.
I only proposed intermediate solutions, because I thought that would be more likely to actually amount to something. Kind of like when Google did SPDY to push for HTTP/2.0, but you'd need a player the size and with the interest of Google to do IRC/2.0. Someone to make the decisions.
It's almost ridiculous that something as ubiquitous as instant communication doesn't get more serious attention.
- detaro 10y agoThere is quite a bit of work happening on IRCv3? (at least it looks like that from the outside, I haven't looked into it so can't judge the quality) http://ircv3.net/ http://ircv3.net/
- lmm 10y agoMany IRC fans hate "IRCv3" and feel they're unjustly piggybacking the IRC name to push their own protocol. (Compare Gnutella2).
- lmm 10y agoI don't think building it as a tower of IRC extensions will ever work. You get stuck on "good enough", and the IRC userbase is aggressively anti-centralisation (far more so than the HTTP userbase), anti-change even, and text-oriented. I've long since given up on any effort to make IRC good. I think energy is more productively spent on ground-up protocols that can include the good parts of IRC but also solve the problems I mentioned. Matrix is where most of my hope is going at the moment.