[Standards] Namespaces, specifications, and protocol life cycles
kevin at kismith.co.uk
Tue Sep 23 13:30:11 CDT 2008
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
> Kev and I just chatted about this via IM. So I take it that we'd start
> with urn:xmpp:protoname:0 and increment from there? I'm fine with that,
> and it does seem more sane than the :tmp: approach.
> 2. urn:xmpp:jingle:apps:rtp:0
> I think I prefer the number at the end in all cases.
> Shall we update all the Jingle namespaces along these lines? I'd be
> happy to do that during the current revision cycle. Speaking of which,
> back to work...
I don't see a reason not to start now. Especially if Jingle is
something we want to encourage adoption of :)
More information about the Standards