3 ms·
Because people want party parrots. And there isn't a standard to send party parrots through XMPP. /s Okay, a little snarky, but it makes a point. Chat progr
by bb88 9y ago
Because people want party parrots. And there isn't a standard to send party parrots through XMPP. /s
Okay, a little snarky, but it makes a point. Chat programs have a lot of proprietary features that won't translate through XMPP.
- hueving 9y agoXMPP had extensions just for that crap. The trick was getting clients that all supported them.
- bb88 9y agoThat's exactly my point. Thank you for making it for me.
- LaGrange 9y agoPretty sure XMPP included extensions for sending arbitrary HTML and binary attachments. Now, support for janky mobile connections, that's another matter.
- SamWhited 9y agoXMPPs actually been really good at this for quite some time; despite XML being a bit verbose, it compresses very well and it's had TCP like stream management at the application protocol layer for ages, among other things. It was pretty bad at low-bandwidth connections in the early 2000s, but now there are people running it over extremely low bandwidth high frequency radio, so a janky phone connection is no problem.
- stephenr 9y ago> Chat programs have a lot of proprietary features that won't translate through XMPP. Most chat networks are still built around xmpp - they’re just not federated and likely using private extensions.
- SamWhited 9y agoMost of the features these programs have translate fine; you won't have a good experience unless you're using their client or another client with a similar feature set (though things to tend to degrade gracefully), but that's fine for the most part. It still gives you a nice realtime API for developing other stuff on top of it, most people will use your clients anyways, and if you're on a feature phone or something and can't use the first-party clients, you can still connect. It's a win-win.