[Council] JEP question
DWaite at jabber.com
Tue Aug 7 15:03:29 CDT 2001
Yep, I agree..
But looking at the other side of the coin - I'm making a proposal for
conferencing, and it would be nice hypothetically if competing proposals did
not have to come up with a distinct namespace, or reference implementations
didn't conflict on what they thought should be in that namespace. Part of
the standardization process would be copying that namespace into its place
in the "jabber:*" scheme, and (if people follow this scheme) it will be
apparent which is the final namespace. Of course any deployed reference
implementations can continue using the 'draft' namespace as well as the
final one, if they so choose.
- David Waite
From: Powell, Jim (EER)
To: council at jabber.org
Sent: 8/7/01 1:44 PM
Subject: RE: [Council] JEP question
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
Helps to keep 2 groups from coming up with a namespace name that gets
stepped on. Basically it would help with planning and accounting.
> -----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
Council mailing list
Council at jabber.org
More information about the Council