[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Instant Messaging type submit
7/07/00 11:41, Jonathan Dixon wrote :
> This is actually what my proposal is primarily about -- the use of the URI
> for finding out more was just an after thought.
> Think of it as identical to your original suggestion, only using a more
> pragmatic (and scaleable) method for allocating IM type ID's than pulling
> them out of the air.
> E.g. using the URI avoids two different companies both claiming the ID
> "MYINSTANTMESSENGER", without the need for establishing yet-another-body for
> handing out IDs. The domain name they use might not actually point to a
> machine (hence isn't actually a URI ;) as long as they own it and can
> guarantee nobody else will use it.
> Once a protocol/number scheme is defined -- as with your proposal -- it's IM
> ID is for life. So com.icq *always* means ICQ protocol, regardless of what
> exact client you're using or whether ICQ rebounds itself or whatever.
> So in your example, if the two (or more) message protocols are actually the
> same, they use the ID of whoever originated it. e.g. com.msn.messenger.
I agree with your idea of whoever originated. I think your proposal is more
pragmatic than mine and I like it.
Ma carte de visite a changé / Check my new calling card
May, 24th 2000- Ukibi awarded "BEST TOOL" at Internet World Berlin