4 ms·

> Version 1.0.0 (2020-10-14) Glad to see it's being addressed, but: - The proposal is stable, but not finalized - 13 years is a long time to wait for a solut

> Version 1.0.0 (2020-10-14) Glad to see it's being addressed, but: - The proposal is stable, but not finalized - 13 years is a long time to wait for a solution (iPhone debuted in 2007, got apps in 2008) - Plus however long it takes for implementations to adopt this - Plus whether they adopt it at all, since this is a protocol extension and not a protocol requirement. The XEP requires client-server cooperation, which means the clients and all servers the user connects to have to implement this to see the benefit.

zaik 5y ago
I think most XMPP clients for mobile devices have supported this (and other protocol extensions like push notifications) for quite a while now. Conversations, the most popular one, certainly does.
MattJ100 5y ago
> "The proposal is stable, but not finalized" Is "stable" now a negative thing? I don't understand. If you are referring to the "document lifecycle" at the side of the XEP, and the "Final" status there... "Stable" is the "widespread adoption" stage. "Final" is a dead-end status that means the extension is frozen. It's rarely used for extensions that are actively in use until they are beyond updating. > "13 years is a long time to wait for a solution (iPhone debuted in 2007, got apps in 2008)" This extension was created in 2014, and implementations were already performing traffic optimizations (using other non-standard methods) before then (which is why we decided to standardize it). > "Plus however long it takes for implementations to adopt this" It's already adopted, implemented and deployed. You can see deployment stats at https://compliance.conversations.im/test/xep0352 https://compliance.conversations.im/test/xep0352 - as for the handful of servers there that don't implement it, on investigation these tend to be private, abandoned or special-purpose servers. > "Plus whether they adopt it at all, since this is a protocol extension and not a protocol requirement. The XEP requires client-server cooperation, which means the clients and all servers the user connects to have to implement this to see the benefit." As I said, it's already implemented and adopted in clients and servers. It has been a requirement in the XMPP compliance suites for years (for reference, latest is here: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0459.html#mobile https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0459.html#mobile ). All in all, your comment seems to contain a lot of unfounded scepticism and negativity. This problem is solved, since a long time :)
- spiffytech 5y ago
  > Is "stable" now a negative thing? The XEP page indicates the proposal is still subject to change ("some changes to the protocol are possible before it becomes a Final Standard.)". That kind of thing sometimes holds up adoption of standards, creates incompatible implementations. But you've demonstrated it clearly doesn't in this case. > This problem is solved, since a long time :) I stand corrected! Thank you for your instructive reply.

zaik 5y ago

I think most XMPP clients for mobile devices have supported this (and other protocol extensions like push notifications) for quite a while now. Conversations, the most popular one, certainly does.

MattJ100 5y ago

> "The proposal is stable, but not finalized" Is "stable" now a negative thing? I don't understand. If you are referring to the "document lifecycle" at the side of the XEP, and the "Final" status there... "Stable" is the "widespread adoption" stage. "Final" is a dead-end status that means the extension is frozen. It's rarely used for extensions that are actively in use until they are beyond updating. > "13 years is a long time to wait for a solution (iPhone debuted in 2007, got apps in 2008)" This extension was created in 2014, and implementations were already performing traffic optimizations (using other non-standard methods) before then (which is why we decided to standardize it). > "Plus however long it takes for implementations to adopt this" It's already adopted, implemented and deployed. You can see deployment stats at https://compliance.conversations.im/test/xep0352 https://compliance.conversations.im/test/xep0352 - as for the handful of servers there that don't implement it, on investigation these tend to be private, abandoned or special-purpose servers. > "Plus whether they adopt it at all, since this is a protocol extension and not a protocol requirement. The XEP requires client-server cooperation, which means the clients and all servers the user connects to have to implement this to see the benefit." As I said, it's already implemented and adopted in clients and servers. It has been a requirement in the XMPP compliance suites for years (for reference, latest is here: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0459.html#mobile https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0459.html#mobile ). All in all, your comment seems to contain a lot of unfounded scepticism and negativity. This problem is solved, since a long time :)

spiffytech 5y ago
> Is "stable" now a negative thing? The XEP page indicates the proposal is still subject to change ("some changes to the protocol are possible before it becomes a Final Standard.)". That kind of thing sometimes holds up adoption of standards, creates incompatible implementations. But you've demonstrated it clearly doesn't in this case. > This problem is solved, since a long time :) I stand corrected! Thank you for your instructive reply.