[Council] JEP question

Powell, Jim (EER) PowellJF at navair.navy.mil
Tue Aug 7 14:44:41 CDT 2001

You know, I have been thinking about that myself.  I think it would make
more sense if they used the namespace that they will be using in the end.
Helps to keep 2 groups from coming up with a namespace name that gets
stepped on.  Basically it would help with planning and accounting.

Jim Powell

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Waite [mailto:dwaite at jabber.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 6:37 PM
> To: council at jabber.org
> Subject: [Council] JEP question
> I am curious what others think - should proposals be limited to using 
> 'draft' namespaces different than their final namespace?
> For instance, I have been working on a new conferencing protocol for 
> quite some time (see http://jabber.org/?oid=1538), which currently 
> specifies that it uses the jabber:iq:conference and jabber:x:invite 
> namespaces - should it instead declare its own namespaces and 
> have the 
> namespaces used switch when/if it is formally accepted?
> -David Waite
> _______________________________________________
> Council mailing list
> Council at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/council

More information about the Council mailing list