Talk:XMPP

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

JINGLE[edit]

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)[reply]

Shisha[edit]

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)[reply]

Changes to example section[edit]

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)[reply]

The example section has now been deleted, with the reason that it was 'not very useful'. Personally, I was quite curious as to the format of the XML streams, so I ended up going and looking at the example in the article history. Thus, it was useful to me. However, I'm not sure whether said chunk of XML belongs in the article or not, in that I don't know whether anyone else would find it useful - opinions? 86.10.97.74 23:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Implementations section[edit]

Isn't it better to replace that section with the category XMPP? NaturalBornKiller 18:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section that should be removed IMO is now called "Uptake and clients".--NaturalBornKiller 10:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

XMPP or Jabber?[edit]

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)[reply]

Jabber is just an implementation of the XMPP. Comparable to the relation between IRC and its protocol.

maybe more between MIRC or XCHAT, and the IRC protocol?134.225.217.52 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jabber client has been purchased by CISCO there should be a separate wiki article on the jabber client. 68.236.187.250 (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.[1][2] --88.73.20.200 (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

XMPP is the new name, Jabber the old. So yes, they refer to the same protocol stack. See also my answer on Superuser: http://superuser.com/a/427872/18192 And "Jabber Inc." was very much related to the early days of XMPP/Jabber development. Flowzn (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

projects that use xmpp[edit]

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)[reply]

Port (5222)[edit]

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

Or know when port (5222/tcp) is working! Jspc138 02:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Intelligence Community embracing XMPP[edit]

Anyone got a reliable source on that? 217.132.4.207 (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References are dead[edit]

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)[reply]

Google Wave[edit]

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)[reply]

Weaknesses:Scalability needs rewording[edit]

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)[reply]

Presence data overhead
"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)[reply]

Pros:Decentralization ?[edit]

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)--200.83.2.4 (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Connecting to Other Protocols[edit]

I see here "This may violate terms of service on the protocol used; however, such terms of service are not legally enforceable in several countries." Is there a reference for this?

Reference to XMPP.net[edit]

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)[reply] 

--fixed, let me know if i missed anything. Keastes 20:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keastes (talk • contribs)

Message delivery scenario[edit]

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)[reply]

peer review please[edit]

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)

Beginning of article incorrect[edit]

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)[reply]

RFCs of XMPP are updated[edit]

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)[reply]

Initial summary needed[edit]

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)[reply]

Lightbulb logo?[edit]

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)[reply]

skype[edit]

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)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol → XMPP – Per WP:TITLEFORMAT – the protocol is almost exclusively referred to as XMPP. XMPP already redirects here and has no other meanings. The proposed name is also more recognizable, natural, and concise. Consistent with XML and IPsec. Pnm (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per TITLEFORMAT and WP:COMMONNAME. The protocol is almost never referred to by its expanded name, except in explaining the acronym. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits›     01:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not referred to as Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol with frequency in any of the refs. -—Kvng 16:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:ACRONYMTITLE. I am not seeing the "almost exclusive" argument holding in this case. Just over 1,500 hits come up on google books[3] with no shortage of 2012/2011 publications. 1,300 of those hits employ both the acronym and the name which only leads me to believe that the full name is required for general public consumption.[4]. In addition, 88K hits on a google proper search with wikipedia removed.[5]. I see greater value in leaving the full title.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you review the content of the results from Google Books, rather than going by the excerpt, you'll notice that they all use the expanded term only in two situations: when referring to the title of the RFC document that defines the protocol, and as an explanatory expansion on first use. After first use, throughout the prose of all of the sources in your Google Books results, the protocol is referred to exclusively as XMPP. – NULL ‹talk›
      ‹edits›       22:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did examine a fair number of the sources directly and in near all cases the text included the acronym immediately after in parenthesis. In every sources it was felt necessary to provide a fully expanded explanation of the term. I didn't see a sources where a explanation was no provided. If you need to explain the acronym than it doesn't make a good title. In terms of explanatory first use and never again further on, that's the standard writing style employed across mediums, regardless of notability and commonality of use of the acronym.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure you understand what I'm referring to. Of course the acronym is expanded on first use, most sources explain what an acronym means the first time it's used and we also do that for all acronyms, including in this article. The fact that it's never used again through any of the sources is relevant. What I'm referring to is the fact that once the acronym has been established, it is never referred to by its full name again in prose. Your assertion 'if you need to explain the acronym, it doesn't make a good title' is baseless, we're an encyclopedia and educating readers on what an acronym expands to is expected: see NASA, XML, HTML, Laser, Sonar, Radar, IPv4, IPv6, NATO, and countless others. As WP:ACRONYMTITLE says, "An acronym should be used in a page name if the subject is almost exclusively known by its acronym or is widely known and used in that form (e.g. NASA and radar)". As seen in the sources you provided, XMPP is both 'almost exclusively known by its acronym' (the only full use being explanatory text) and 'widely known and used in that form', meeting both criteria. The full text is never used in the sources you provided in any situation other than explaining the acronym. – NULL ‹talk›
          ‹edits›           00:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • If a title is exclusively or almost exclusively refereed to by a certain acronym than I agree. There is however no reliable source data within this move request to suggest that that is true in this case. The data I have thus far presented shows that there is a notable amount of non-acronynm usage, enough that I believe there is a case to be made that the acronym is not almost exclusively known by its acronym. The knowledge and acceptance of the acronym appears to be limited to the industry of work as a news search produced very few hits (129 hits) all of which appear to be a mixture of blogs and non-english sources.[6] The acronyms you list above are used widely enough that the prevalence of the acronym in media is more widespread. Similar family articles largely find themselves at non-acronym titles, including File Transfer Protocol, Simple Mail Transfer Protocol, Hypertext Transfer Protocol andInternet Message Access Protocol. Further, most of the article located within Category:Application layer protocols employ full text titles.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • FTP, SMTP and IMAP are all at their full title because of disambiguation, as are most of the protocols in the category you linked. In cases where the acronym is ambiguous, expansion is dictated by our policies and is normal. There is no other usage of XMPP. Could you point out a source that uses the expanded form of XMPP in any situation other than A) explaining the acronym, or B) referring to RFC papers by their full title? I don't agree that the data you've presented shows a notable amount of non-acronym usage. – NULL ‹talk›
              ‹edits›               22:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • In all the cases I mention, the acronym points to the subject articles. Disambiguation doesn't appear to have anything to do with their current location. If you don't agree with the data presented, present something to the contrary. At the moment the arguments in support contain no referable substance, simply an opinion.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • The evidence you've provided clearly supports the acronym as primary usage. Your interpretation of that data is what's questionable, not the data itself. – NULL ‹talk›
                  ‹edits›                   20:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This protocol is ubiquitously known as XMPP. From the expanded name it will not be clear to most people that this article is about XMPP. XMPP is as an acronym is unambiguous. —Ruud 22:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per nom. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Always referred to as XMPP, and expanded only in explanation of the acronym. A classic case of exactly what the guideline seeks to describe as valid usage of the acronym as a title, actually. Andrewa (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Silent Circle Instant Message Protocol[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please discuss changes to the indefinite article[edit]

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)[reply]

It's been pointed out at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (ANI to its friends) that the IP addresses I quoted are from the 4096 rotating Vodaphone addresses at 109.77.128.0/20, but other IPs are also involved, and that the affected articles all or almost all use Template:IPstack. Andrewa (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI discussion is now archived here (so please do not edit it there).

Salient points are that an edit notice has been added to XMPP and to Resource Reservation Protocol using Template:Indefinite article editnotice, and will be added to other pages as they are hit. It needs admin privileges to do this, see Wikipedia:Editnotice. Andrewa (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: 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)[reply]

XMPP as an extensible Message Oriented Middleware (xMOM) platform[edit]

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)[reply]

Well, it's not bullshit at all, XMPP is actually used in cloud computing. Andrew Shadura (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XMPP is used in OpenContrail Juniper network extension for OpenStack. There is a RFC draft here : https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-l3vpn-end-system-06.txt This is not a proof of concept, it is used in production environements. http://www.opencontrail.org/

native XMPP (needs to be clarified)[edit]

"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)[reply]

Support for end-to-end encryption[edit]

Edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=XMPP&oldid=650104362 added "missing end-to-end (e2) encryption" to the weaknesses list. I reverted that edit in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=XMPP&oldid=659660391 which was again reverted in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=XMPP&oldid=660500157 by the user who originally added that point. It was claimed in the revert that "Those were proposed, never implemented, now dead.". But this is not true: At least Conversations (Android XMPP Client) and Gajim (Multiplaform Python XMPP Client) support various means of XMPP e2e encryption, including XEP-27. I believe that many further implementations of XMPP e2e encryption exists.

And even if there was no single implementation of a e2e XMPP specification available, which I just refuted, then the claim "XMPP does not support e2e" does still not hold, because the protocol does indeed support e2e. You have to distinguish between the features of the protocol XMPP and the various XMPP implementations. This Wikipedia page is about the protocol XMPP. --Flowzn (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Flowzn: I'm in a bit of a rush at the moment, but a few points:
  • XEP-0027 is for OpenPGP. Almost no one uses it with XMPP, and it's a very defined and separate protocol.
  • I actually did a bunch of research for the proposed native XMPP e2e protocol because I was considering applying for a paid internship to write a replacement. I'm almost sure that it expired and was never accepted. If it was accepted, it was never implemented. Remember that XEP stands for XMPP Extension Proposal - proposal implies the option for acceptance or rejection.
  • Remember the distinction between encryption protocol and transport protocol. For example, you can implement OpenPGP or OTR encryption to work over telegraph or carrier pigeon - they're text-based and transport-independent. XMPP has no realistic implemented (or, I think, unimplemented) standardized way for clients to do e2e encryption. Anecdotally, for a protocol that complex, it definitely should. XMPP doesn't have e2e encryption any more than carrier pigeons do.
Exercisephys (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Flowzn: Also, I figured this is particularly apt for this discussion: I'm exercisephys@blah.im on XMPP if you ever want to chat about this.  :-)
Exercisephys (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

XML stanza[edit]

XML stanza currently redirects to XMPP. What does it mean? --Abdull (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation?[edit]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:XMPP&oldid=1204240572"