[Standards] Namespaces, specifications, and protocol life cycles

Pavel Simerda pavlix at pavlix.net
Wed Sep 10 09:44:49 CDT 2008


On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:54:19 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:

> Dave Cridland wrote:
> 
> > the advantage here is that if the protocol is 
> > stable earlier than its move to Draft - and actually, this is
> > normally the case, a lot of the pre-draft stuff is specification
> > wrangling rather than proptocol redesign - people can go ahead and
> > implement it, and it'll continue to work.
> > 
> > Otherwise, as we get closer to Draft, we're actually putting people
> > off implementation at the very moment we want to encourage it.
> 
> I think that's the key bit.
> 
> But how much are developers scared off by the need to support both 
> urn:xmpp:tmp:foo and urn:xmpp:foo? It seems to me that's just a
> simple switch statement in your code.
> 
> Also, it's not clear how we'd handle sub-namespaces:
> 
> urn:xmpp:foo:4:sub

This one looks better and more logical to me.

Pavel

> 
> or
> 
> urn:xmpp:foo:sub:4
> 
> ?
> 
> Peter
> 


-- 

Pavel Šimerda
Freelancer v oblasti počítačových sítí, komunikace a bezpečnosti
Web: http://www.pavlix.net/
Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net
OpenID: pavlix.net


More information about the Standards mailing list