You are correct. People do call IM real-time. But I was asking that we not do so. The definition of 'real-time' by the ITU covers Real-time text but not IM. And there are important reasons for the definition -- and for not calling IM real time. IM can take a very long time before anything is sent for slow typing users (and if the person doesn’t or can't hit the return - it is never sent) -- whereas real-time text is guaranteed to be sent continuously with only slight batching for efficiency.
There are now requirements being created in communication and emergency specifications - that use RTT as the designator for what is needed (so that they don't have to specify a single standard for all platforms). So it is important that real-time text communication not be confused with IM. Hence the request that we try to avoid that going forward. Thanks. Gregg On Jul 1, 2012, at 12:19 AM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote: > > On Jun 30, 2012, at 3:28 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: > >> >> >> On Jun 30, 2012, at 4:21 PM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote: >> >> but please also don't call messaging 'real time' because it isn't. > > too late for that. XMPP I/M has been, right or wrong, referred to as a > service for real-time conversations (or real time chat) for a long time > (search xmpp.org for uses of the term "real-time"). > > And, as far RTT v. XMPP IM, both can easily be referred to as "near > real-time", both do not send keystroke events in real time. Both RTT and > XMPP IM batch text to some degree. It's simply that RTT uses a timer based > batching and XMPP IM uses a user specified batching. Both allow for humans > to have a real-time conversation. > > But rather not get wrapped around that axel. It's splitting hairs. > > -- Kurt
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
