2008/4/9, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Daniel Henninger wrote: > >> I don't disagree from the client perspective. But my philosophy has > >> always been to make XMPP as great as it can be, then everyone else will > >> eventually decide that they need to use XMPP and not some proprietary > >> garbage. > > > > > I won't get into my diatribe about why I think that will never happen. > > > Aside from saying why are people still using IE6 and even IE5? ;) I've > > always been a big proponent of "let them use what they want, we'll do what > > we can do make the world able to communicate better". That doesn't mean > > trying to tell someone "your client blows, use this instead". Personally I > > see no problem with transport work as part of the GSoC. HOWEVER I do agree > > that, to me, the greater spirit of the XMPP involvement would be to learn > > more about XMPP and improve upon it directly. Can that be done by > improving > > upon existing transports? Maybe. "In an ideal world", it could be > awefully > > nice to see a project in which some sort of XEP gets implemented and > > improved upon, or some sort of new XEP concept gets written. > > Really I have nothing against transports. However, my focus is on making > native XMPP technologies as powerful as possible. Personally I'd rather > support some fun project like MSN-like emoticons over XMPP than just > bridge to a closed technology. But that's just my opinion. :)
When you have a larger user base, you get these fun things automatically: end users will pull for these features instead of some instance pushing them. -- Mvg, Sander Devrieze.
