<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 3/4/2009 12:06 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:49ADFE45.firstname.lastname@example.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 1/14/09 2:20 AM, Richard Smith wrote:
I've been having a think over the past few days and have been wondering if
applying namespaces on an attribute level is valid within XMPP, and if there
are any guidelines as to attribute specifications used.
What I'm pondering is while the following is valid XML, is it valid under XMPP?
>From what I understand in RFC3920 this would be ok, however mildly confusing
Am I right in thinking that while this is valid, it's generally not good for
client understanding? Not that I care much in this context anyway since I'm
using XMPP as a transport protocol for something non-IM based, but it's
always good to know :)
We prefer not to do things that way in XMPP, and if you expect that to
work you might be surprised because some implementations out there on
the network would not be happy to receive such XML. :)
Namespaced attributes are, imo, just too tempting to avoid using.
Although it may go against the spirit of full present-day
interoperability, I think implementations not supporting real
namespacing are going against the spirit of XML--which is of course the
<i>extensible </i>markup language--and should be the ones forced to