[standards-jig] JANA pt. 3

Thomas Muldowney temas at box5.net
Tue Aug 6 02:58:20 UTC 2002

While I do agree that the URL type namespaces work beautifully, and we
should be using them more.  The idea that someone maintains a bit of a
watch over what we give the http://jabber.org/protocol/blah urls to,
would be beneficial.  Having that as a small group (JIG really) in the
JSF makes a lot of sense and would ensure some amount of unity and
thought in the namespace naming.  Otherwise I agree, a simple PHP based
page could be used for people to avoid any real overlap, and that would
only take a person or two, to approve posts to.


On Mon, 2002-08-05 at 20:55, Mike Lin wrote:
> > I imagine the role of standardizing XML Namespaces will not be terribly 
> > important in the Big Scheme of things. JANA will mostly serve as a 
> > central database of used and claimed namespaces, allowing people to 
> > query that instead of sifting through large amounts of JEPs or 
> > third-party docs.
> The point of XML namespaces is that it is not necessary to reserve or
> claim them. They are names that you choose to be globally unique. You
> would choose a namespace http://www.theoretic.com/something and you
> could be pretty sure that noone else would try to use that namespace,
> since you control the theoretic.com name.
> There is nothing _preventing_ someone from using that namespace if they
> wanted to, but no one not trying to cause trouble would want to. (and if
> they were trying to cause trouble, JANA would not deter them)
> > > If
> > > the browse/disco items are in question, maybe we should just make them
> > > namespace-qualified.
> > 
> > How do you mean? Are you referring to JID Types? If so, then you mean 
> > turn JID Types into some type of namespace?
> I'm suggesting that instead of having a central authority for granting
> "JID-types", just make JID-types namespace-qualified. Then you won't
> have name clashes. If I want to declare a new JID-type, I just qualify
> it with my namespace. Other people can use it if they want to, so long
> as they use the same semantics as me.
> That stated, it might be useful to have a little PHP toy for people to
> say which names they are using for what, but this, it seems to me, does
> not really warrant the excitement we've been having over it.
> -Mike
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig

More information about the Standards mailing list