iain.shigeoka at messaginglogic.com
Thu Aug 8 16:34:32 UTC 2002
On 8/7/02 10:19 AM, "Dave Smith" <dizzyd at jabber.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 7, 2002, at 12:03 , Iain Shigeoka wrote:
>> I'll chime in with another +1 to punt to JNG.
>> Namespaces are definitely something we need to do right (thanks for
>> it up yet again Diz... We need it done.). However, its ugly ugly ugly
>> the current Jabber setup. I hate to punt to JNG again but IMO this is
>> to break the "simple for client developer" promise too. Perhaps the
>> namespaces deadline should be a JNG deadline?
> Nooo! :) Namespaces are not _that_ bad to do correctly. Does it require
> work? Yes. Is it all easy? Probably not. But, given the ever moving date
> of JNG, I'm strongly against chucking "namespace correctness" into that
My worry is that namespace correctness breaks Jabber simplicity. My firm
belief is that Jabber simplicity must be the golden rule and takes
precedence over XML correctness every time. If we can come up with a
namespace correctness that preserves Jabber simplicity I'm all for it.
However, as I understand the problem (arbitrary subdocuments in more than
one streaming document) this is very nontrivial and hence breaks Jabber
simplicity. The simple solution is to create separate XML documents for
each packet but that requires a fundamental change to the Jabber streaming
More information about the Standards