On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 11:06:14PM -0400, Arc Riley wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Dave Cridland <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >> I'd like to repeat my earlier request for the title of this XEP to
> >> specify "in-band" gaming
> >
> > I hate the expression "in-band", actually, but "Multiplayer games
> > over XMPP" would be a more useful title - I was expecting an 
> > XFire-style thing from the title.
> >
> I find "over XMPP" just as misleading in scope.
>
> We're doing out-of-band gaming over XMPP via Jingle ICE-UDP in our
> game engine with XMPP handling server info announcements, ICE 
> negotiation, inter-game shared buddy lists and messaging.
>
> If we publish an XEP it should be clear by their titles what each is
> designed for.

Agreed. We started this protocol based on Game Sessions [1]. But we soon
realized that our proposal gets far away from it, so we looked for
another title.
The goal of this proposal is to support any game which is suitable for
XMPP. That means we want to use the strengths of XMPP [2] and not limit
the use of XMPP by out-of-band data. So we had in mind that we don't
want to limit that proposal to a special kind of games only for that
games which aren't suitable for XMPP.
But if several people don't expect that under the title "Multi-User
Gaming" then we should look for a more appropriate title.

> There are already a few gaming XEPs (and proto-XEPs) with extremely
> niche use cases actually, it'd be nice to work on these (ie, xep-0196) 
> so they're more general purpose and suitable for standardization.

We used User Gaming [3] for publishing active game sessions. But what
other XEPs do you mean and how is the relation to this proposal?
Do you think this proposal should be more modular or use more other
XEPs? Or do you think there is no use case of this proposal?

Best regards


[1] http://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/gamesessions.html
[2] http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0134.html#strengths
[3] http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0196.html

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Reply via email to