Fri, 08 Sep 2017 12:28:56 +0200 Goffi <[email protected]> wrote: > It's not poorly adopted at all
None of my clients use it. And I use well-maintained clients (Dino+Conversations). Where is it adopted? How can I make an A/V-call to Gajim or Xabber or whatever? > it's well designed, support range, hash, metadata, NAT transversal, > alternative methods/fallbacks and various transports How is this superior to HTTP get/put? How hashes and metadata will help you exchanging avatars with mutually unsupported formats? In practice, clients never check caps of their peers, otherwise we would have avatars working. Also, we used to have avatars working, but after some clever improvements we have even this broken. > It's only missing part is an URI scheme to retrieve the data, it was > supposed to be done for a while, I'm not sure what happened there. Happened what always happens with Jingle: nobody wants to implement it, so no need to bother improving specs. Also, if there is an HTTP for file exchange which covers all the cases (offline/muc), why would client devs mess with Jingle which is much more complex? > Actually using HTTP upload would not be a problem for me if XEP-0084 > or anything adopted would accept files sent by jingle. How is this supposed to interact with old clients? _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
