[dcc2] Comments

[myndzi]

> Well if that's truly how you want it, then you don't want it "as-is" because
> DCC Chat already does more than that! It allows you to use CTCP ACTION.
> That's more than just "the exchange of text." If DCC Chat already uses CTCP,
> I don't see the harm in making it use CTCP a little bit more.
...
> But I'm not arguing for partyline, I'm arguing for nick changing. I don't
> want DCC Chat to include multiple users, kicking, invites, etc. All I want is
> nick changing. So what are you suggesting? You guys make draft-foo-dcc-chat
> and I need to make draft-bar-dcc-chat-nick because you think they should be
> seperate? For this one minor difference, you're saying we need two seperate
> protocols? I don't think anyone who responded to the CTCP control idea
> mentioned anything about using it for partyline. So I'm not sure where you
> got that idea from. We're talking about 1-2 minor features, not a full blown
> partyline. I'm telling you I want an apple, and you're telling me I need to
> go plant a seed and grow a tree. I don't want an apple tree, I just want one
> apple. Same here, I don't want a partyline, I just want a single feature that
> you seem to find characteristic of a partyline.

Then you are arguing the wrong case dude. Since what I've been talking
about is more than just nick changing, why get all defensive on it? I
may have included something from your pet idea in my original post,
but I'm not knocking it. I don't really see the need for nick change
in DCC Chat anyway, but it's not worth arguing over. -My- case is for
separating the partyline crap from basic DCC Chat.


> I completely agree, partyline should be something seperate. I realize that.
> But I'm not suggesting that we turn chat into partyline, I'm just suggesting
> a few enhancements. I think the CTCP over DCC is a great idea. I see no
> reason why you shouldn't be allowed to see the lag time between you and the
> other chatter, or their idle time, etc. And nicks, I still fail to see how
> nick changing implies that the next step will be partyline. As far as I know,
> it seems most people already agree partyline should be seperate, so I don't
> think that's an issue anymore. The issue now is, should there be some control
> stream over DCC Chat?

I don't mind CTCP over DCC at all. Heck, it's already there, as you've
pointed out. I just am against using it for things that aren't really
appropriate for CTCP. The control stream thing would again be more
than just a simple direct chat. That doesn't make it a bad idea, just
a more complicated one. Don't read more into this than there is :) You
seem to think I'm attacking your personal idea, but that's not the
case at all.

Anyhow, this is just about run into the ground so I'm calling it quits
on this thread unless some dire circumstance requires my expertise ;P

-myndzi