IM Protocols

Matt Rogers mattr at
Thu Jul 14 03:04:26 EEST 2005

Ok, so i'm a bit late to this thread, but better late than never. :)

On Wednesday 13 July 2005 11:27 am, Fabian Zeindl wrote:
> Hm, isn't it easier for alternative client to compete with the official
> ones when the community helps together reengineering protocols and
> coding implementation so that all alternative clients benefit?
> lg
> fabian

you're probably right but there are a lot of issues here, although it is a 
nice idea. i suppose they're all really political issues (like what language 
to write it in, etc.)

> Robert Martin schrieb:
> > It would be good but some of the Corps like to "inovate" third party
> > clients out of their network. (kopete and gaim both have this issue)
> >

I have no clue what is meant by "some of the Corps like 'inovate' third party 
clients out of their network". please clarify.

> > On 7/8/05, Fabian Zeindl <fabian.zeindl at> wrote:
> >>Hi
> >>
> >>Wouldn't it be good to have unified implementations of IM Protocols like
> >>Oscar, Jabber, etc.? Like Poppler for Pdf.
> >>

poppler for PDF came out of xpdf and the fact that the author wasn't willing 
to merge certain patches that people sent him, so it was basically forked. 
(from my understanding). So you're saying that we should fork all the IM 
clients into one? ;)

More information about the xdg mailing list