[Council] namespaces as HTTP URIs

Joe Hildebrand JHildebrand at jabber.com
Mon Oct 7 19:02:11 CDT 2002


+1

-- 
Joe Hildebrand

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:stpeter at jabber.org]
> Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 5:11 PM
> To: council at jabber.org
> Subject: Re: [Council] namespaces as HTTP URIs
> 
> 
> I'm glad we're all in agreement. :P
> 
> First, we seem to agree on the http://jabber.org/ part. 
> 
> After that, DW is in favor of "jeps" whereas everyone else likes
> "protocol". DW, what's the reasoning behind "jeps"? I prefer 
> "protocol"
> because it seems to me we're using this only for Draft and 
> beyond. JEPs
> are how protocols are proposed, not the end result.
> 
> As to naming, we could do abbreviations (by which "multi-user chat"
> becomes "muc") or some kind of full name. Abbreviations seem 
> cleaner to
> me.
> 
> This multi-user chat protocol is a bit "different" in having 
> sub-protocols
> for owner, admin, and user. They could also be seen as 
> related protocols
> (muc-owner, muc-admin, muc-user) rather than a hierarchy. I don't know
> that it matters all that much.
> 
> In any case we need to group them together somehow. I'd prefer not to
> overload names. Thus, to me, muc-owner is not as clean as muc/owner or
> muc#owner.
> 
> Are there are other examples in which we'd have a hierarchy 
> or do we want
> to have a flat "address space" here? Going forward I would 
> think we will
> not have things like protocol/x/roster since there really 
> isn't a valid
> distinction in my mind between "x" and "iq" namespaces (in fact our
> current situation with x:roster and iq:roster etc. is confusing). So I
> would argue for no hierarchies. This leads me to think that 
> fragments with
> "#" are better.
> 
> Since I agree with pgm that version numbers are not necessary unless
> we have future revisions (and in any case I think versioning is best
> handled outside the namespace declaration, a la XSLT etc.), I 
> would argue
> for this:
> 
> http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#owner
> http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#admin
> http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#user
> 
> Peter
> 
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> Jabber Software Foundation
> http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.php
> 
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Thomas Muldowney wrote:
> 
> > I'd have to agree with DW on the #<part> usage.
> > 
> > --temas
> > 
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 02:36:29PM -0600, David Waite wrote:
> > > Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> > > 
> > > >http://jabber.org/protocol/gc/owner/1.0 is my favorite.
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > I like
> > > http://jabber.org/jeps/multi-user#owner
> > > http://jabber.org/jeps/multi-user#admin
> > > http://jabber.org/jeps/multi-user#user
> > > 
> > > -David Waite
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Council mailing list
> > > Council at jabber.org
> > > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/council
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Council mailing list
> Council at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/council
> 



More information about the Council mailing list