Le jeudi 10 mai 2018, 10:36:17 CEST Steve Kille a écrit :
> Having made the latest round of MIX edits, I felt it was time to share
> some thoughts on MIX.
>
> It has been a number of years since work was started on MIX, and
> implementations are thin on the ground. It seems sensible consider
Hi Steve,
I’m interested in implementing MIX in aioxmpp and JabberCat. I consider the
model of MUC broken (I’m not going to list the brokenness here) and unfixable
within the existing specification.
MIX is huge, I agree. Splitting the spec seems like a good idea, but it will
not be easy (to
2018-05-10 14:38 GMT+05:00 Evgeny Khramtsov :
> I'm for sure vetoing MIX implementation in ejabberd in the form it's
> presented currently.
We too don't have plans to implement MIX in Xabber on any platforms.
It's too bloated and unnecessarily overcomplicated and hardly an
Thu, 10 May 2018 11:21:43 +0200
Daniel Gultsch wrote:
> What worries me about MIX is that it looks like such a big spec that
> no body is going to implement fully that years from now we are still
> going to find 'bugs' in the XEP. Like we recently found 'bugs' (under
>
2018-05-10 10:59 GMT+02:00 Philipp Hörist :
> Im interested in implementing it in Gajim
>
> It would be nice if someone could share the domains where a server
> runs that offers some kind of MIX impl.
Yeah if isode could make a mix server publicly available that would
Having made the latest round of MIX edits, I felt it was time to share some
thoughts on MIX.
It has been a number of years since work was started on MIX, and
implementations are thin on the ground. It seems sensible consider when and
if this will change.
There are a number of reasons why