[Standards] [Fwd: Re: Namespace well-formedness and RFC3920bis backwards compatibility]
js-xmpp-standards at webkeks.org
Tue Sep 23 17:23:45 UTC 2008
Sorry, I didn't read the whole thread as I'm on vacation, but it seems
to me you are talking about the routing of unbound namespaces - a
problem we have with Gajim at the moment. When we receive an unbound
namespace, our XML parser will just fail and there's not much we can
do about that. It's nearly impossible to fix for us, it would require
changes to Python and pyxmmp, if I looked correctly.
OTOH, it's easy to not route unbound namespaces. There is already a
patch for ejabberd that does this. The performance loss introduced by
it is so minimal that you can ignore it. There is a ticket for that
bug, which I unfortunately don't have handy atm. And I can't look it
up as I'm writing the message offline.
> authors will just say that since there's no "MUST" which ejabberd
> violates then it
> is perfectly XMPP compliant. So, there's no any incentive to fix the
ejabberd authors said last time I spoke to them that if the new,
revised RFC does not change regarding this aspect, they might apply
the proposed patch.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Standards