Outside of our tech circle, there's not many people who wouldn't be turned off by having to register an account by typing custom commands. Or chatting without avatar support.
It may seem silly, but I think many people are turned off by this.
And it's not silly at all, I understand it, I just wish it wasn't the case. I don't like it but I get it and I don't expect that irc will ever hit the mainstream. Maybe something similar will in the future.
I don't know if it's been attempted before... but I think it would be interesting to see something open and community-centered like IRC, but with all these little features people now expect.
Perhaps some RFCs dealing with SRV-records (where is the web UI with channel logs?) -- or maybe even RFCs on how to mirror some functions (nickserv, logs) via REST-apis.
What? What is avatar support and why is it so critical?
Also, as a sibling said, those seem like problems clients can work to solve, not the protocol.
It's not critical at all, but it's something people have come to expect from an instant messaging program.
If our 'open' alternatives don't get those little details right, then it'll be harder for people to transition from whatever closed, proprietary service they're using to something that values their freedom.
I still don't know what "it" is though.
> If our 'open' alternatives don't get those little details right, then it'll be harder for people to transition from whatever closed, proprietary service they're using to something that values their freedom.
I also doubt a feature-perfect clone would attract that many users. There needs to be some advantage to using the system, otherwise network effect prevail. (yes, that's a bit oversimplified, but I think it's valid none-the-less).