mikelin at MIT.EDU
Wed Aug 7 15:25:32 UTC 2002
> I don't follow. Can you elaborate with an example?
What I said in a roundabout way is I don't really see what's so wrong
with what we're doing now.
> Oy. The streaming vs. document argument is not relevant here. What _is_
> relevant is that I should be able to compose an XML fragment with the
> appropriate namespaces and not have to worry about my serializer picking
> the "correct" prefix for a URI -- I should not be required to always use
> the prefix "stream" for the http://etherx.jabber.org/streams namespace.
...but you never use http://etherx.jabber.org/streams namespace in a
We're addressing two separate issues - one is, How should XML processors
think about XML namespaces? The answer to that is certainly, as we both
have implemented it, names should be thought of as fully-qualified by
namespace URI. But the other question is, How should a Jabber streaming
document reference the http://etherx.jabber.org/streams and
jabber:client namespaces? I don't really see anything wrong with "use
the prefix "stream" for one, and make the other the default".
If you're only talking about the first question for _payload_ fragments,
I completely agree with you. I'm just not sure why we really need to
change the answer to the second question.
I hope you see that the fact that we have this streaming document is
very relevant to this second question; if this were not the case, it
wouldn't be an issue, because every packet would always have these
namespaces internally declared.
More information about the Standards