[Council] VOTE: JEP-0011

Jeremie jeremie at jabber.org
Wed Apr 3 16:27:11 CST 2002


> Depends if this is legacy or not. Are we going to change the namespace 
> from browse, since there are already (4+) clients/libraries which 
> support the old incarnation of browse, as well as (at least) six 
> open-source or commercial components and routers using the old 
> incarnation of browse.
> 
> I'd vote 0 for no changes on browse, just because we are tied by 
> existing implementation. If browse is actually open for changes, there 
> are a lot more comments and suggestions I have on it, and I would 
> definately vote -1 on the current incarnation with or without this minor 
> change.

If you'll vote 0 for no changes, then I'd like to propose one simple
addition that is in the middle, and doesn't add anything "new" to browse
at all (as if it were open for changes). It may not be pretty, but don't
discount it simply because of that.

We already have the item element as browse is now, let's just support the
category="" attribute on the item as the "proper" way to specify
categories.  A viewer could process every element in the browse
namespace, setting category first based off the category attribute,
and failing that based on the element name.  The category attribute would
always take preference.

It could restrict that any new serving implementations must use <item
category=""/>, and that viewers support backwards compatibility with
existing implementations by secondarily looking at the element name.

This seems to me to be pretty straight forward and workable, both
backwards compatible with all existing implementations and going in the
right direction for the future, with a very minimal logic for a viewer to
fallback on.

If acceptable, this should break the deadlock between pgm -1'ing w/o
change, and dw -1'ing w/ change.

Jer





More information about the Council mailing list