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

Dave Smith dizzyd at dizzyd.com
Tue Mar 5 02:39:02 UTC 2002


On 3/4/02 7:30 PM, "Thomas Muldowney" <temas at box5.net> wrote:

> I'm reading it all again to make sure I didn't miss anything, but it
> sounds like the elements still have to be valid within their DTD.  So
> what's their root and where is it?  Am I misinterpreting something?

Well, I guess the point I'm going for is that even if there is a root, just
because you insert a fragment that is not the primary root, it's still
valid. It could be very well be that the root element of the pub/sub DTD is
simply <root>, with <publish>, <subscribe>, etc being child elements.

It seems much cleaner to just say:

<iq ...>
  <subscribe xmlns='...'/>
</iq>

Etc. 

Diz

> 
> --temas
> 
> 
> On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 18:05, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 3/4/02 4:12 PM, "Thomas Muldowney" <temas at box5.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> I disagree that it has to be a <query> element, but the usage of the
>>> xmlns isn't correct currently in the spec. The xmlns has multiple root
>>> elements, from a quick browse it seems to be <publish>, <subscribe> and
>>> <unsubscribe>.  We need one root element or multiple namespaces.
>>> 
>> 
>> Why do we need one root element (or multiple namespaces)? I'm not aware of
>> any qualifications in the XML namespace spec that requires namespace'd
>> fragments to have a root element...??
>> 
>> Frankly, I see the pub/sub stuff as fragments which we embed into other
>> documents to gain additional functionality. I see nothing wrong with top
>> level verbs (like publish/subscribe).
>> 
>> Diz
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Standards-JIG mailing list
>> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
>> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
> 
> 




More information about the Standards mailing list