- From: Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>
- Date: 1 Jun 2013 21:13:17 +0200
- To: public-fedsocweb@w3.org
- Cc: "Simon Tennant" <simon@buddycloud.com>
Simon Tennant: > On 1 June 2013 20:20, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> I think XMPP is great as part of an overall solution in the FSW. And I'm >> keen that XMPP systems should be able to communicate with other systems. >> The JID xmpp:user@host in my view is an excellent choice of identifer, I >> can add it to may roster, and there's a well defined way to send the >> messages. >> >> But we need solutions in the HTTP space as well. Facebook for example >> have decent solutions in HTTP, email AND XMPP. It's just a pity it's >> centralized and proprietary. >> > > XMPP: very good at federation and identity / not very good at display and > client apps > HTTP: no native federation and identity / excellent at display and client > apps > > So (and this is how we built buddycloud), use HTTP to get that information > from your home domain via an API, and use XMPP to transport and share > between domains. I fear that making XMPP an essential building block of the FSW without any alternative would severely impede the acceptance of the Best Practice document. What do others think? (Especially those who currently do not operate XMPP servers or use XMPP in their software!) What could be done to make it easy enough to use XMPP for S2S communication for those who currently do not do that? Cheers, Andreas
Received on Saturday, 1 June 2013 20:02:40 UTC