[standards-jig] Checking for implementations

Adam Theo theo at theoretic.com
Tue Apr 16 17:51:02 UTC 2002

DJ Adams wrote:
> Hi 
> I was just catching up on the council mailing list, where I came across
> an interesting snippet of conversation in the thread on JEP-0011 [1], 
> when talking about the jabber:iq:browse JEP, and whether a new namespace
> should be used for the slightly modified browse spec, so as not to 
> break current usage.
> The gist of it goes like this:
>   "Do we use a new namespace or not? There are people currently using
>   browse as it is now..."
>   "Well, here's a short list: jabberd, JabberCOM, Winjab (etc)"
>   "Here are some more implementations..."


Hm, not sure I fully understand your point. I agree, yes, that trying to 
list the implimentations of the current spec is a lost cause and a bad 
way of making a decision. But this just seems like a trivial issue.

But you do bring up the good point of whether to re-name the new 
namespace, or just break current implimentations.

I say we re-name the namespace to something like "jabber:iq:browse2". 
The only problem I see is that people will still try to use the old 
"jabber:iq:browse" namespace because they don't pay enough attention to 
the lists or docs to know the change took place.

     /\  Adam Theo, Age 22, Tallahassee FL USA
    //\\   Email & Jabber: theo at theoretic.com
   //  \\  (Boycotting AOL, therefore no AIM or ICQ)
=//====\\=  Theoretic Solutions: http://www.theoretic.com
//  ||  \\     "Bringing Ideas Together"
     ||      Jabber Protocol: http://www.jabber.org
     ||         "The Coolest IM on the Planet"
     ||  "A Free-Market Socialist Patriotic American
     ||      Buddhist Political Philosopher."

More information about the Standards mailing list