What I find odd - quite odd actually! - is that you don't admit that many of these points raised by us are very valid and true.
valid pointSo the question still needs to be answered, why should an IRCd change to meet the needs of a client?
If all clients demanded the IRCd's change to fit some new/old/changed feature they included nobody would want to write/maintain IRCd's or the IRCd's would become way too complicated.
valid pointFirstly you made the point Adobe wont change, so what makes you think Unreal will?
..snip boring other valid points..
cgi:irc, ssl, ziplinks, all clients can work without them. no valid point.But also take a look at the cgi:irc support, since when isn't cgi:irc a client ? Well it's almost the same as flash, it's also a technology to allow a new type of clients connecting.
incorrect. to do it properly (and not just having nuls halfway a packet) it requires tens of lines. i know this, because i wrote a patch that does this for a customer. it's also very ugly, which is one of the main reasons why i didn't put it in unreal. not to mention, even my attempt still produced slightly ugly results. i don't like hackish implementations.it doesn't require alot of code rewriting, just a listener and a client flag, and an extra line in the send code.
If you can admit (and believe), that the first two points I quoted are valid, then perhaps we can talk.
Right now it seems like you are saying that everyone should follow flash/etc and everyone who doesn't is 'wrong', while it's exactly the other way around.