3 ms·
The last time I looked at IRCv3 I was disappointed by how much was an optional extension. My opinion is that a strong 'minimum' protocol is critical to interop
by mjevans 5y ago
The last time I looked at IRCv3 I was disappointed by how much was an optional extension.
My opinion is that a strong 'minimum' protocol is critical to interoperability and opportunities for federated protocols to function well across providers. I recall that was the main, non XML, reason that XMPP failed. Of course I also dislike XML as a data storage / transmission format.
- badsectoracula 5y agoIRCv3 is written to be backwards compatible so it makes sense to have a ton of optional stuff - considering it is backwards compatible, everything is optional :-P. And it makes sense, IRC is already out there and has a ton of servers and clients working, you can't split that community based on the client they're using otherwise you're just creating yet another isolated chat protocol like a ton others before it.