5 ms·
There was one beautiful moment where Google and Facebook supported XMPP so you could just set up your XMPP server and talk with people across the platforms but
by xani_ 4y ago
There was one beautiful moment where Google and Facebook supported XMPP so you could just set up your XMPP server and talk with people across the platforms but both decided to close their gardens for the usual reasons
But XMPP is shitshow of million XEPs and massive matrix of which supports what. So just because in theory there is some feature you want it doesn't mean that your server and your client will work with it. That's terrible value proposition to anyone wanting to do anything in the space, you dont want to debug (and we did had to, when we used xmpp for our company chat) why user X using communicator Y on platform Z can't send attachment to your user on communicator Q.
XMPP needs to just sit the fuck down, gather the XEPs and put it into XMPP 3.0, with few feature sets that every client and server using it needs to support all at once, not picking and choosing.
So if you make text only chat client, it supports all of the formatting, all of the file send/receive, all of the MUC things, all of the E2E encryption things, all at once. And have one text formatting to support (Markdown seems to be winning here), not a bunch.
- detaro 4y ago> gather the XEPs and put it into XMPP 3.0 The yearly compliance suites try that - and then IMHO fail a bit by offering too many variants.
- MattJ100 4y agoWhat variants do you think should not be included?
- detaro 4y agoThat's of course the tricky question. To a degree it might be a presentation thing that they are all shown equally. E.g. to me, I'd expect a headline profile that's equivalent to "Advanced IM + Advanced Mobile". And I'm not sure the split into "Basic/Advanced" esp for mobile makes much sense. But I also can totally understand why people thought each of the distinctions was valuable, but that makes it feel a bit too comittee-style of trying to make everyone happy by including their variant and over-complicating the entire thing as a result. Certainly something I've seen happen to other specifications.
- leetnewb 4y agohttps://docs.modernxmpp.org/ https://docs.modernxmpp.org/
- bongobingo1 4y agoI think I've seen a comic about this.
- kitkat_new 4y ago> XMPP needs to just sit the fuck down, gather the XEPs and put it into XMPP 3.0, with few feature sets that every client and server using it needs to support all at once, not picking and choosing. Matrix: https://spec.matrix.org/latest/ https://spec.matrix.org/latest/ You are welcome
- zaik 4y agoThis isn't compatible with XMPP.
- jjrh 4y ago> gather the XEPs and put it into XMPP 3.0, with few feature sets that every client and server using it needs to support all at once, not picking and choosing. They do exactly that - https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0459.html https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0459.html Easy to deploy solutions for common use cases like company chat are being worked on with projects like https://snikket.org/ https://snikket.org/ (or well movim!)
- thiht 4y agoYes, extensibility is XMPP’s curse. Don’t make something open and extensible for communication. Make it full featured and versioned so that users don’t have to deal with a stupid compatibility matrix. I hated XMPP with all my heart.