Talk:XMPP

message: I'm a bit confused about jingle & VOIP using xmpp and it would be good to add this to the wiki page.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamsorandom (talk • contribs) 21:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: JINGLE

message: I'm going to delete the reference to Opetec's Shisha product. It's not open source as stated and the link provided is "404 Not found," anyway. Searching independently produced a link at the Opetec web site saying that the product is still unreleased, scheduled for release in 3Q 2005, and states that even the basic functionality of the product is secret:
Developer Opetec, Publisher: TBA
Due for release: Q3 2005
Platform(s): Linux, Windows, MacOS, Solaris, Symbian OS
Description:
Unfortunatly we are unwilling to reveal the true features at this stage, but we will say, without any marketing speak that it is the next revolution in communication and interoperability. For the developers we will be releasing a fully open toolkit to allow developers to use the features of Shisha on any existing platform. If you are interested in investing in Shisha or developing the project further, then feel free to contact Opetec - we will communicate more information with investors who appear to be serious and who are interested in investing in the technology sector.
There's not even a basis for saying that Shisha, whatever it is, has anything to do with XMPP.
Zigamorph 15:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Shisha

message: I changed the example section a little bit in an attempt to make it easier to follow.  The previous names (kuusipuu and tero) and the test server (amessage.de) were very different and made the confusing example a little more confusing.  I picked more common and generic-sounding names, alice, bob, and example.org.  --Foofy 18:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to example section 

message: Isn't it better to replace that section with the category XMPP? NaturalBornKiller 18:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section that should be removed IMO is now called "Uptake and clients".--NaturalBornKiller 10:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a section documenting larger projects which adopted the protocol would be very warranted, although it should be more prose and less of a list. I certainly agree that we don't need another list of Jabber clients. We already have List of XMPP client software which is in serious need of improvement. -- intgr #%@! 11:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implementations section 

message: It seem to me that XMPP and Jabber are exactly the same thing, but Jabber seems to be a more common name. So shouldn't the article be talking about Jabber instead of XMPP which is a technical name? Wikipedia:Naming convention would seem to indicate that the name Jabber should be used. Or can someone come up with a reason why XMPP should be used instead? Pafcu 09:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true. A company with the misleading name "Jabber, Inc." that offered a commercial XMPP client was purchased by Cisco. AFAIK it is not related to the original Jabber or to jabber.org. The "Jabber" trademark is owned by "Jabber, Inc." but administered by the XMPP Standards Foundation. --88.73.20.200 (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  XMPP or Jabber? 

message: i don't know if it's important, but i think that google's android is using this to send "intents" between devices and the olpc uses this as well (i just passed by, please delete my comment if it's not important enough to be included in the article) --84.108.246.171 07:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  projects that use xmpp 

message: Why standart XMPP port (5222/tcp) wasn't mentioned in the arcticle? _Vi (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Port (5222) 

message: Anyone got a reliable source on that? 217.132.4.207 (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligence Community embracing XMPP 

message: The references are dead from the mail.jabber.org domain, can someone please update  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.125.216 (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References are dead 

message: This page is missing information/links regarding Google Wave - which i think is fairly important but I don't know how to go about doing it. --87.4.147.67 (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Wave 

message: In the section Weaknesses:Scalability, the second and third sentences need a rewrite. In the second sentence, what does the phrase "These two" refer to?
These two sentences seem to be talking more about muli-user chat and publish/subscribe services, rather than XMPP. Maybe these two sentences shouldn't be there at all? Perhaps there should be a discussion of the scalability problem as it relates specifically to XMPP. Is there work being done on XMPP to improve scalability? -- Dougher (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "and close to 60% of it being redundantly" This is highly subjective, not typical, and should be removed.  As presence is a huge overhead, this "60%" redundancy only occurs in certain conditions between 2 servers with an extremely large number of cross-server user subscriptions.  This could easily be reproduced at 10%, 20% or even 220% presence packet redundancy. Something more along "possibility with many redundant packets" would be better.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.209.23 (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weaknesses:Scalability needs rewording 

message: Ok, decentralization is a pro, i won't argue about it. But also is a weakness.  Let's say, if MS put their (wrasp) in XMPP, then soon we will find a MS-XMPP protocol, adding some superset of function and removing some "useless or non used capabilities".  Since it is decentralized then everybody can change (or to keep a old version), then sooner or later this will become a nightmare.
--200.83.2.4 (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That has nothing to do with decentralization, or if anything, the effect would be the opposite. What you are talking about is the fact that somebody can implement a protocol that's not XMPP. Whether it's somehow based on XMPP, or some centrally organized protocol, or a design from scratch, doesn't really make any difference here - as long as inventing protocols for instant messaging is not illegal, you won't be able to stop that from happening. Actually, probably the only way you possibly could stop it is by having a protocol with decentrally administrated infrastructure (like XMPP) widely deployed. As no single party can change that infrastructure, they'll have to stay compatible with it if they want to participate in the market. 85.116.198.153 (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pros:Decentralization ?

message: This web site is no longer around.  As of October 2009 they no longer provide SSL certificates.  They now link to StartSSL and ask that you get your free certificate directly from them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zellfaze (talk • contribs) 22:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to XMPP.net 

message: In the alternate scenarios of Step 2, it is unclear whether Montague.net or Capulet.com seeks to see if Romeo is connected. I feel confident that Montague.net checks to see if he's online and, if not, stores it, so I have modified the scenario to follow that. Someone, please confirm that and, if I am wrong, change it. Dabizi (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Message delivery scenario 

message: i edited this article several days ago to reflect a change in the certificate issuer, on 22 may 2010 the article was edited and the reference was removed, the reference given in the change was http://blog.xmpp.org/index.php/2009/09/ca-updates/ as a blog its is a gray area under WP:V as well as valid information was added, how ever the link to the issuer was removed which i feel was valid information, i want to see if i can get a third head in her to make sure this meets WP:links and is not considered an edit war. the section in question is the security sub-section of strengths
i will merge the two three versions, again i would like some one to check it mostly for WP:EL#what_to_link, thank you
edit:correction to my abysmal spelling and remove resign by sinebot Keastes 06:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  peer review please 

message: Someone might want to fix this.  The beginning of the article starts with the history of XMPP but incorrectly asserts what it was originally developed for.  If the beginning of the article starts with the history, then to be correct it should say that XMPP was developed for chat (rather than today's extended uses listed there).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpbear (talk • contribs) 13:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning of article incorrect 

message: http://xmpp.org/2011/03/updated-xmpp-rfcs/
Someone should do update the article on this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebukadneza (talk • contribs) 20:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFCs of XMPP are updated 

message: I came into the article to get a quick read on what Jabber is. What I found was a mass of buzzwords, links, and stuff that should have been footnotes hitting me right in the face, right up top. And note I'm a geek -- just not that flavor of geek. So I'm off to find another site to tell me what Jabber is, because I don't have the patience or interest to wade through this.
Suggestion: put a summary of what it is, what it does, and preferably a screenshot of one popular implementation right up top. Then you can get into the arcane stuff and buzzword orgasms.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.92.220 (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial summary needed 

message: Isn't the lightbulb the more widespread logo for XMPP/Jabber? Many clients use it and so does the figure in the "Connecting to other protocols" section. I've never seen the XMPP foundation logo anywhere.--88.73.20.200 (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lightbulb logo? 

message: This article currently says "Skype also provides limited XMPP support." . Given the context I would interpret this as meaning that it is possible to use an XMPP client to connect with skype contacts. However following up the reference it seems to only mention XMPP support in the skype CLIENT (to connect to facebook IM), not in the skype service. Plugwash (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  skype 

message: Silent Circle create a secure version of XMPP: Silent Circle Instant Message Protocol, i don't know if this article must talk about it...
https://silentcircle.com/web/scimp-protocol/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2E52:79B0:C4B:A394:351D:25C8 (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't read their whitepaper yet but I'd be inclined to say it's probably not worth mentioning here. XMPP is designed to be extensible and we haven't mentioned any other extensions either. The protocol whitepaper also seems to be only dated two months ago and I can't find any secondary sources that talk about it with a quick Google search. Might be better to leave it out for those reasons. – NULL ‹talk›‹edits› 04:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silent Circle Instant Message Protocol  

message: I've reverted a change to the article which is one of many similar by IPs in the range 109.77.xx.xx, made recently to articles in this general subject area, most of them already reverted by others.
Please discuss such changes. If you do not wish to create an account, here is as good a place as any to start.
See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User: 109.77.xx.xx and the indefinite article. Andrewa (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is "an XMPP" wrong?  Certainly this seems to be required by the rule explained at A_and_an#Indefinite_article, which is what I always go by.  Are there any dialects that  don't pronounce the first letter like "ex"? -- Beland (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Please discuss changes to the indefinite article

message: This entire section seems like complete BS to me: All it says is XMPP could be used, might prove useful, may prove ideal, etc. So, it's neither backed by anyone actually using it for that purpose or at least a proof of concept implementation somewhere. The section claims that "XMPP is a perfect protocol for Cloud Computing" - there is nothing to back that claim. In my mind (I'm a researcher in the area of distributed systems, cloud computing and related areas), this is just plain wrong and I can't see any reason why anyone should think so. I would suggest removing this entire section (and I wasn't the one who put the neutrality marker in there). 130.149.158.15 (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not bullshit at all, XMPP is actually used in cloud computing. Andrew Shadura (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: XMPP as an extensible Message Oriented Middleware (xMOM) platform

message: "Similarly, in December 2011, Microsoft released an XMPP interface to its (now-defunct) Microsoft Messenger service.[15] Skype, its de facto successor, also provides limited XMPP support.[16] However, these are not native XMPP implementations."
XMPP is a protocol. It was unclear to me what "native implementations" mean or why it should matter. It shouldn't matter only that a protocol is implemented (completly)? I can understand "limited" there but limitted how? I searched for "native":
"The original and "native" transport protocol for XMPP is Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), using open-ended XML streams over long-lived TCP connections." This I think is a different context and not helping with the above, that I also assume uses TCP.. Can XMPP use something else?
What I guess is meant is that others use another protocol (their own) and can also implement XMPP. Does "not native" mean use a gateway?: "Another type of gateway is a server-to-server gateway, which enables a non-XMPP server deployment to connect to native XMPP servers using the built in interdomain federation features of XMPP. Such server-to-server gateways are offered by several enterprise IM software products, including:
FYI: Microsoft Lync Server: "Lync Server has an XMPP gateway server to federate with external XMPP servers.[24] With Lync Server 2013, XMPP is natively part of the product." comp.arch (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  native XMPP (needs to be clarified) 

message: XML stanza currently redirects to XMPP. What does it mean? --Abdull (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A stanza is the basic unit which XMPP entities exchange. See also https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/stanza#Noun and https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6120#section-4.1. The Wikipedia article should get extended with a basic introduction of XMPP and the employed concepts. Flowzn (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:   XML stanza 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on XMPP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110510012207/http://www.gnomis.org/presentasjoner/oslo2005/xmpp.pdf to http://www.gnomis.org/presentasjoner/oslo2005/xmpp.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071103080257/http://www.xmpp.org:80/xsf/press/2003-09-22.shtml to http://xmpp.org/xsf/press/2003-09-22.shtml
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091213180443/http://www.jabber.org:80/2009/08/xmpp-server-migration/ to http://www.jabber.org/2009/08/xmpp-server-migration/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091223033256/http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2008/corp_091908.html to http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2008/corp_091908.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081101072959/http://www.networkworld.com:80/news/2006/120606-sametime-links-up-with-aim.html to http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/120606-sametime-links-up-with-aim.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100105062129/http://www.microsoft.com:80/presspass/features/2009/oct09/10-01ucinterop.mspx to https://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/Features/2009/oct09/10-01UCInterop.mspx
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091024103254/http://xmpp.org:80/xsf/press/2004-10-04.shtml to http://xmpp.org/xsf/press/2004-10-04.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I can't find any sources online for the claim that PlayStation is using XMPP? Nowned (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  PlayStation?