> Right. Probably the biggest difference between the two proposed approaches is the reliance on server-side > support. > http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/whiteboard2.html requires server-side support while sxde tries to > allow sessions 1-to-1 and in MUC rooms and includes the possibility of specific server-side support merely > as an optional enchancement to lessen some of the requirements on the clients.
Just to clarify, server-side support is needed for MUC rooms only; not for 1-to-1 sessions. Michael Bishop -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joonas Govenius Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 1:45 PM To: XMPP Extension Discussion List Subject: Re: [Standards] whiteboarding and shared editing On 8/16/07, Bishop, Michael W. CONTR J9C880 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While reading some of the discussions on this topic in the list, I > realized that our protocol shares some of the same characteristics. > While it was designed specifically for whiteboarding using SVG as a > medium, the protocol itself does not deal with SVG. The manipulation > of the SVG document can be applied to any XML in any namespace. While > it's been written as a whiteboard protocol, nothing forces it to be > one. It would work as-is as a shared XML document protocol with > permissions, history, current state, and presentation. Right. Probably the biggest difference between the two proposed approaches is the reliance on server-side support. http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/whiteboard2.html requires server-side support while sxde tries to allow sessions 1-to-1 and in MUC rooms and includes the possibility of specific server-side support merely as an optional enchancement to lessen some of the requirements on the clients.
