comments below
On 3/2/08 4:07 PM, "Mateusz Biliński" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi. > Google Summer of Code 2008 is really close. So I've thought of > applying for a project connected to Gajim client - being more > specific: implementing whiteboard. I've already talked to Asterix > about it and he thinks this would be a really nice feature. He pointed > me out here to ask whether there is any official (or at least > recommended) way to do this. > > So I've done my homework and read all the discussion I have found on > this list regarding 'whiteboard xmpp specification' - especially > discussion that took place in August last year. Below is my attempt to > summarize this briefly: > > * there are a few implementations working already (i.e. Concinella, > Psi by Joonas Govenius, the one in Inkscape) but these are _not > interoperable_ > * there were a few attempts to build a specification. I list them > below in the order (I think) they've appeared: > > The oldest (last update:2001) approach to specify a standard for > whiteboard (I don't suppose this is used. but I'm not sure): > http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/whiteboard2.html > > > the date is incorrect. it is actually 2006/2007 timeframe.. And is in heavily > use both with my organization and several others in the US Government. > > You can download our XMPP client (TransVerse) from https://xmpp.je.jfcom.mil > > We also have a Jive OpenFire plugin that you can also download that supports > large group based whiteboarding and presentations. > > We have tested this over low bandwidth satellite communications with over 100 > concurrent users. > > No formal decision has been made within the XMPP community on whether SXDE or > our approach is the correct one. > > Our approach does solve the concurrency problem of SXDE without complex user > interaction issues and it can handle the history/chunking problem. > > > boyd >> >> >> >> >> XEP-0113: Simple Whiteboarding (this one's deferred) >> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0113.html >> >> An SVG Based Whiteboard Format (this could be used with the next one >> -sxde - to build a standarized whiteboard?): >> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/whiteboard.html >> >> Shared XML Document Editing (a generalized approach, I suppose this >> one was substituted by the next one): >> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/sxde.html >> >> Shared XML Editing (This is by far the most recent approach - this is >> going to a fundamental standard for all applications of shared XML >> editing. This is the one that team is currently working on.): >> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/sxe.html >> >> * stated above there are two types of discussions around: >> - whether the 'shared XML editing' isn't too generalized approach >> for whiteboard (but AFAIK this SXE would only be a common _base part_ >> for all applications that would use shared editing - or am I >> wrong?) >> - how to solve concurrency problems, especially when users attempt >> to edit the same object in parallel >> >> I think this would be it. Maybe I have missed something - if so, >> please point this out. >> >> Finally here are my two questions: >> - what is currently _the best way_ to implement whiteboard (in this >> case in Gajim). Should it be based on SX(D)E? Or maybe it should be >> based on currently working implementations in other clients so that it >> could interoperate with them? (I guess the first one is more sensible >> in current situation) >> - what are the chances that this project will be chosen by XSF for >> GSoC2008. What I am worried about is whether currently there is any >> sense in implementing this if there is no official specification for >> whiteboard. What I mean is that I would really like to do this, but >> what is XSF opinion about this. >> >> My current proposal would be to implement SX(D)E in Gajim as >> whiteboard and point out pitfalls that I fall in to during coding >> which could help build a specification draft. But I suppose Jonnas >> Govenius is working on this in Psi, so this falls back again to the >> question: is this project sensible for GSoC in XSF opinion. >> >> Thank you for your answers in advance. >> >> -- >> Regards -- Mateusz Biliński >>
