On Thu Nov 15 15:05:13 2007, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
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?
Well, we're certainly the right body of people to say something about
it, and to draw implementor's attention to issues inherent in such a
proposal, including Nagle's algorithm, delayed ACK, server processing
load, and other things that affect tinygrams and µstanzas, many of
which have been documented thoroughly in a number of places. I'm not
going to claim we're the ultimate authority, but these are all real
issues that will need to be either addressed, or at the very least
noted, in any proposal.
Look, you have a given swath of bandwidth.
(I'm not sure swath, or swathe, is the right word here. But anyway. A
given width of band?)
If you use it to send
char-by-char text, that may be fine depending on the context.
Yes, I'm just saying that char-by-char text has issues which are much
more significant when used over the Internet, and that needs to be
factored into 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'm struggling with the validity of this use-case. But see below for
a better solution. (And yes, I can think of very rare, convoluted,
use-cases where this makes sense).
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.
Sure, although I suspect this is a solution searching for a problem.
I think at the end of the day, some people find this kind of thing
fun - that's reason enough to consider standardizing, but caveat
implementor.
FWIW, I think an extension for sending partial messages makes more
sense than aiming to get char-by-char messages. Sending the partial
messages when the user has *not* been typing for a while makes more
sense to me than sending while the user is still actively using the
keyboard. This could be negotiated down to effectively char-by-char
over particularly short wide links, such as link-local, but be more
network-friendly over the Internet.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
