On Sun, 2002-04-07 at 15:08, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:41:22AM -0700, Alexander Hvostov wrote: > > Who says they have to keep the 512 byte limit? People don't generally > > IRC from 300 baud modems these days. Anyway, if they're designing a new > > protocol, shouldn't the protocol be _new_? Perhaps it could be a > > thoroughly compact binary protocol, for instance. > > That's actually on the list, although the conventional one will still > work - but ascii text orientation still has it's advantages Such as wasting large quantities of extremely limited and very expensive bandwidth to allow about 5 users per network to use telnet to IRC? Ask some Undernet server admins what _they_ think of all of the bandwidth that gets wasted by the horrendously slow protocol that is IRC. > as does namespace compatibility with rfc1459 Such as having a PRIVMSG and NOTICE command that do exactly the same thing, but are treated slightly differently by bots? Or perhaps that the ugly hack that is CTCP has to be used for clients to exchange structured data? Regards, Alex. -- PGP Public Key: http://aoi.dyndns.org/~alex/pgp-public-key -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS d- s:++ a18 C++(++++)>$ UL+++(++++) P--- L+++>++++ E---- W+(+++) N- o-- K+ w--- !O M(+) V-- PS+++ PE-- Y+ PGP+(+++) t* 5-- X-- R tv b- DI D+++ G e h! !r y ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
This is a digitally signed message part