This sounds about right. There's nothing wrong with a new c2s XMPP protocol, but the existing protocol just won't cut it for the reasons Brian has raised.
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 09:47, Brian May<[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 08:40:05AM -0700, Tad Glines wrote: >> Also, Google makes their e-mail service available via POP and IMAP so >> that people can use thick clients and do data transfer and archiving. >> So, why not make wave available via XMPP. > > The existing XMPP based protocol may not be the best way of doing this, for > much the same reason SMTP is not a good way of having email clients (MUA) > receive email. > > Essientially if you did so the client would become a server, and have to be > reachable 24 hours a day. > > Instead we have one protocol for server to server communication (SMTP), and > another for client to server communication (POP or IMAP). The distinction is > blurred slightly when you consider SMTP is used for sending email, not > POP/IMAP. > > At least that is my vague understanding of the wave protocols. > -- > Brian May <[email protected]> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
