[standards-jig] Checking for implementations

Thomas Muldowney temas at box5.net
Mon Apr 22 17:13:07 UTC 2002


Because iq:browse far predates the council, or the idea of the council. 
The JEP is mostly informational with a tiny bit of new information.

--temas


On Mon, 2002-04-22 at 03:19, James Widman wrote:
> How is it that these implementations started using 'jabber:iq:browse' without the council approving JEP 0011 first?
> In the future, should implementations based on not-yet-approved JEPs use a namespace like 'exp:myNiftyNamespace' or 'jabber:exp:myNiftyNamespace'?
> Does the Jabber community need namespace police and/or a naming convention for experimental protocols?
> --James
> 
> Adam Theo wrote:
> > DJ Adams wrote:
> <snip>
> >>   "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..."
> <snip>
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> jabber:ns at neutralstone.net
> 
> For Loops: part of a balanced NP-complete breakfast.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig





More information about the Standards mailing list