Jabber Update
Permalink
May 13, 2002
Jabber

A Jabber update: As you may have seen on Scripting News, there's this "tcp.im" thing which we're still hammering out. Exactly what happens with the Jabber code I've written depends on what happens over the next few days, and whether or not Dave decides to ship it standard to everybody with Radio. (Personally, I'm hoping we can get both Jabber and AIM support over the next few days to the point where we can ship both, but obviously what finally happens isn't my call ;-) )

If it isn't shipped standard, it will still be an easy-to-install Tool released by me.

No matter how it ends up getting distributed, here's where the code stands now: Other then bug fixes and some cleanup, I'm declaring it complete. It support sending and receiving messages, sending and receiving presence info, sending and receiving subscription requests (automatically accepting all subscription requests), and extension with arbitrary iq namespaces, which is powerful enough to implement most things currently being actually done with Jabber (as opposed to spec'ed-without-implementation), such as Jabber-RPC (now actually some sample code, rather then an integral part of the core; this is a good thing) and the pubsub stuff.

Mental note to self: Remember to confirm and write up opinion on why multiple query tags in one iq tag is a mistake, and send to the Jabber protocol list. (Basic premise, which I need to check: iq tags have an id, which should be one-to-one: One id used once outgoing, and the incoming tag with the same id should correspond to that outgoing tag, in the form of request-reply. IIRC, as spec'ed, iq tags may contain an arbitrary number of query children, doing arbitrary things. The problem comes in that error messages get associated with the iq tag, again IIRC, which is why I need to confirm it. So, you can send an iq tag with three parts. Suppose the second errors. Do you send an error back? What if two of them error? Can you tell which errored? (No, I don't think so.) Should you re-send the third part? If I'm representing this correctly, this is a mis-match in the protocol, and while it's technically too late to correct the actual protocol, people should be encouraged to write clients that always send 1-to-1 iq/query messages, and feel free to reject later query elements.)


"Jeremy Boring"
Permalink
May 10, 2002

Ouch. 12th hit for "jeremy boring" on Google.

Damn that's one good search engine...


Alexa site reviews
Permalink
May 10, 2002

Review Scripting News on Alexa.  

Observation: To those who claim things like web annotation are necessary, this is exactly the sort of site I've been saying should exist instead. If you must review sites, this is how to do it; elsewhere. Linked in, but elsewhere. No need to worry about Alexa stomping on sites, or affecting the editorial integrity, while at the same time, it still provides a platform for discussion of the site.

Or at least a potential platform. While I grant this is hardly a replacement now, certainly there's no reason Alexa or a similar entity couldn't implement a fully-fledged discussion board, or whatever else, connected to websites. This is the way the web should work.


Humorix - The SSSCA Doesn't Go Far Enough
Permalink
May 10, 2002

'[[Humorix's] Editor's Note: The following is a letter that HumoriXP sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee in response to the proposed SSSCA.]'

'1. WHEREAS Congress finds that the vast majority of Internet users and entertainment consumers are thieves, pirates, miscreants, Communists, hackers, and anarchists, and that musicians, artists, writers, authors, directors, actors, programmers and executives are suffering undue harm as a result, we hereby enact the Secure Software Systems for the Children Act of 2002 to declare war against copyright, trademark, patent, and trade secret violations throughout the world.'


Judge Says Russia Software Company Can Be Tried
Permalink
May 09, 2002

'A federal judge on Wednesday denied final motions to dismiss a lawsuit against a Russian software company accused of violating a controversial U.S. copyright law that defense lawyers argued is unconstitutional....

'``The DMCA does not eliminate fair use or substantially impair the fair use rights of anyone,'' the judge wrote in a 35-page opinion. ``The fair user may find it more difficult to engage in certain fair uses with regard to electronic books, but nevertheless, fair use is still available.'''

What to say? (Except to observer "does not substantially impair" and "may find it more difficult" in the same opinion leaves a rather narrow range, which I can't see the DMCA fittin in...)


<- Future Posts Past Posts ->

 

Site Links

 

RSS
All Posts

 

Blogroll