[standards-jig] extending disco#info result

Justin Karneges justin-keyword-jabber.093179 at affinix.com
Fri Feb 20 15:28:06 UTC 2004

On Friday 20 February 2004 07:03 am, Peter G. Millard wrote:
> Jacek Konieczny wrote:
> > IMHO namespaced elements seem better in most cases. x:data may be good
> > for data which structure is not well known or defined.
> I disagree.. I client which wants to provide a generic GUI would have to
> understand ALL possible namespaces. By using x-data, we provide a generic
> mechanism. As Ian mentioned, the identity information for an entity
> provides sufficient contextual information to give meaning to the data.
> If we use seperate namespaces, clients have NO shot at building a GUI which
> will work as new adaptations of this idea unfold. We should always make
> sure what we do is future-proofed.

I think you and Jacek are saying the same thing. :)

Namespaces are useful for transporting non-generic data, as such data should 
only be processed by the client if it is specifically aware of it.  If we 
want to be able to handle generic or undefined data (such as for 
representation in a client GUI), then using namespaces for such data is not 


More information about the Standards mailing list