[standards-jig] Checking for implementations
theo at theoretic.com
Tue Apr 16 17:51:02 UTC 2002
DJ Adams wrote:
> 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 ,
> 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