On Feb 22, 2011, at 13:04 , Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > I wonder what your strategy is to get native XMPP code into the browser (not > just as a plugin). > In case you have a strategy there are probably a few other things that would > deserve attention. Examples: security, and privacy features. > To some extend the recently created woes mailing list also touches on these > problems.
There's been a mostly unspoken agreement to continue this conversation at [email protected]. Please feel free to repost this there; some of this has been addressed already, so you'll want to check the list archives. - m&m > > On Feb 22, 2011, at 9:14 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >> On 2/22/11 12:03 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote: >>> On 2/22/11 5:09 AM, "Hannes Tschofenig" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Aren't there XMPP implementations in the browser already out there? >>>> Example: Strophe http://code.stanziq.com/strophe/ >>>> >>>> So, what are you guys planning to do on top of it? >>> >>> Those implementations use BOSH (XEP-124 and XEP-206) to tunnel XMPP over >>> HTTP. Having a full XMPP stream on a single TCP socket can be more >>> efficient, secure, and easier to deploy. The nice thing is that >>> implementations could choose to fall back on BOSH if XMPP-in-browser didn't >>> work. >> >> Right. This "XMPP in the browser" meme is about native XMPP-Over-TCP >> support in browsers, not XMPP-Over-BOSH support. >> >> Peter >> >> -- >> Peter Saint-Andre >> https://stpeter.im/ >> >> >> >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
