On 12 July 2011 07:03, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue Jul 12 01:26:55 2011, Waqas Hussain wrote: >> >> Why is BOSH included in the list when we say "* Support can be enabled >> via an external component or an internal server module/plugin."? Any >> XMPP compliant server would pass that, so there's no point in making >> this an explicit item. >> >> > Bear in mind that these are marketing and/or procurement terms, primarily. > > So if you went up to a consultant and said "We need an Advanced Server > 2012", they would need to give you an XMPP solution that supported BOSH, > whether or not they'd gone out and installed PunJab. > >> RFC 6122 is missing. >> >> I'm assuming the XSF is using the compliance XEPs as a tool to >> encourage implementation. If that is correct, then: >> >> There's a case to be made for caps support for Advanced Server, as >> some servers do flood users with PEP without taking caps into account. >> >> > Agreed - XEP-0115 is a requirement for PEP. There are also server cases, > too. > > >> What is the case for Chat State Notifications for Advanced Client? I >> mean it's useful, just like a hundred other XEPs, but is it useful >> enough to be made into a compliance requirement? >> >> > I'm ambivalent about this. I do appreciate it's one of those features with > high user demand. > > >> Now, things which are missing, but shouldn't be: >> >> Working file transfer should be a requirement for Advanced Client. >> >> > Agreed - really I think we want Jingle FT with IBB and S5B, but that also > implies a need to support S5B proxying on the server. The trouble is, it's > not clear we're ready with those specs. > >> I'm not sure if audio/video support should be a compliance requirement >> for Advanced Client, but some would think so. >> >> > I'm hoping that "Jingle Voice" etc become compliance bundles, so it's > possible to say that MegaJabber 2.4 is "Advanced Client 2012 with Jingle > Voice". > >> And finally, I'd personally like Message Receipts being included in >> more clients. They make a huge difference when you are on a bad >> network (e.g., most mobile networks outside of central city areas >> across the world). > > That implies we may want XEP-0198 as well. We've been play-testing that on > mobile networks whilst on trains, and so on, and it's very effective. >
We definitely need more mobile clients to support it. I found it worked wonders when I was testing it similarly last year, but that was Lua on the command-line on Android [I was using it for alerts and not IM] :) Regards, Matthew
