Dave Cridland wrote: > On Wed Nov 14 15:20:30 2007, Olivier Goffart wrote:
>> I think this is a good approach. I think we send the text every few >> seconds. That would probably not be sufficient to study how people >> talk, but sufficient for fun user experience. (and the receiving >> client could make appears new chars one by one, slowly) >> This would work fine with normal instant messaging messages (one or >> two sentences), but would consume lot of brandwidth very big messages. > > FWIW, I think using this stuff over link local, or possibly LAN, is one > thing, but using it over the internet is entirely another. Who are we to say what is appropriate over the Internet? Look, you have a given swath of bandwidth. If you use it to send char-by-char text, that may be fine depending on the context. Example: you have set up a special text-only helpline and you need to know exactly what text people type so that you know if the person typed "he has a knife, I think he's going to kill me" instead of receiving a XEP-0085 <composing/> indicator and then <gone/>. I agree that char-by-char text is not generally a good idea (or even desirable to the vast majority of users), but in certain situations it might be very useful indeed. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
