[standards-jig] [jepnews] JEP-0021: Jabber Event Notification Service

Julian Missig julian at jabber.org
Mon Mar 4 23:37:38 UTC 2002


Should the namespace be changed once it's an official JEP, though? I
think that you should be able to tell if something's official just by
looking at the namespace... so http://foundation.jabber.org/jeps/ens or
something

On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 18:34, Thomas Muldowney wrote:
> Julian and I were just talking about actual URL based namespaces today,
> and we both prefer it.  It came up because we were talking about
> rewriting avatar JEP once pubsub is agreed upon.  I want to use URLs in
> my future JEPs, so I say go ahead and use one =)
> 
> --temas
> 
> 
> On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 17:12, Robert Norris wrote:
> > > Just a small comment on the protocol specifics:
> > > In most other IQ requests there is a query tag which holds the namespace, 
> > > and the actual parameters to the request are encapsulated in the query 
> > > element. It would be nice to see that continue or the xmlns declared in 
> > > the IQ. This makes for cleaner code when parsing the xml structure.
> > > 
> > > For example:
> > > <iq id='sub1' type='set' from='subscriber-jid to='ens-jid'>
> > >    <subscribe xmlns='http://xml.cataclysm.cx/jabber/ens' jid='event-
> > > jid'/></iq>
> > > 
> > > could become:
> > > <iq id='sub1' type='set' from='subscriber-jid to='ens-jid'>
> > >    <query xmlns='http://xml.cataclysm.cx/jabber/ens'>
> > >       <subscribe jid='event-jid'/>
> > >    </query>
> > > </iq>
> > 
> > <query/> is a holdover from the days before <iq/>. As far as I can tell,
> > most people use <query/> inside <iq/> because its what all the examples
> > do. There's no real reason to do it that way, though.
> > 
> > The semantics are the same either way, and I think not using <query/> is
> > cleaner and less cluttered.
> > 
> > > Does this make sense, or is it too petty?
> > > It allows me to be stricter in my validation and to keep validation 
> > > feature-local.
> > 
> > What sort of validation?
> > 
> > > The other comment was upon acception into the jabber standard, the 
> > > namespace probably ought to be changed to jabber:iq:ens or something like 
> > > that.
> > 
> > Possibly. The reason I didn't do it was because of this post to the
> > Council list by David Waite:
> > 
> >   http://mailman.jabber.org/pipermail/council/2002-January/000167.html
> > 
> > Although this never got past being proposed, I thought it made sense.
> > 
> > Besides, why do we shove everything into a jabber:* namespace? No other
> > XML-based system forces this. Besides, if we start making this a common
> > practice, then don't we (very eventually) run the risk of running out of
> > meaningful namespace names?
> > 
> > My personal feeling is that jabber:* should be kept aside for the "core"
> > (RFC-defined?) protocol, and that any other extensions should go
> > somewhere else - and it should be left to the proposal authors to come
> > up with this.
> > 
> > As an aside, using http://* as a namespace name means that we can place
> > information about the namespace at that URL -
> >   http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml is a good example of this.





More information about the Standards mailing list