221–225 of 225 posts
Do a substantial number of IRC users actually care that the current version of IRC lacks the features that IRCv3 proposes, or are we just modernizing because we want to make writing IRC bots more complicated?
Take the "away-notify" extension for example. Without it you would have to repeatedly poll a channel with WHO to see if all users in that channel have marked themselves as away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The IRCv3 Working Group is a collection of IRC client and server software authors working to enhance, maintain and standardize the IRC protocol using backwards-compatible extensions. It's not a new protocol.
Fair enough, but I feel you're being a little pedantic since there are base extensions described which are required, and optional extensions which are not required. TLS is one of the optional extensions. So I'll reframe my question and ask: Why isn't TLS a base extension?
We strongly believe that the future of IRC is TLS-only.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
Absolutely not. It's got a bit of an edge without seeming like something an angry teenager came up with - murder.im or so, "Riot" doesn't have only inherently negative associations -, it's short, easy to remember... it would've been a great name for many software projects, but especially for collaborative, communicative software I find it to be a stellar choice.
???
Could you provide some, I can't think of any.
Also Vector seemed fairly decent (with the small plus of the matrix/vector association). Riot isn't much shorter then Vector, it has violent/negative association, and changing names (unless its a major improvement) seems like a bad idea for a piece of software relying on network effects and trying to become popular.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely not. It's got a bit of an edge without seeming like something an angry teenager came up with - murder.im or so, "Riot" doesn't have only inherently negative associations -, it's short, easy to remember... it would've been a great name for many software projects, but especially for collaborative, communicative software I find it to be a stellar choice.
> "Riot" doesn't have only inherently negative associations ??? Could you provide some, I can't think of any. Also Vector seemed fairly decent (with the small plus of the matrix/vector association). Riot isn't much shorter then Vector, it has violent/negative association, and changing names (unless its a major improvement) seems like a bad idea for a piece of software relying on network effects and trying to become p…