[Standards-JIG] Re: Re: proto-JEP: Stream Acking

Nolan Eakins sneakin at semanticgap.com
Fri Oct 29 08:47:10 UTC 2004


Justin Karneges wrote:
> On Thursday 28 October 2004 09:09 pm, Nolan Eakins wrote:
>> Well, if the prefix must be included in the <stream> it would be possible
>> to completely forgo feature negotiation. The client (or server for s2s)
>> would specify the prefix for JEP-Ack's namespace. The server would notice
> 
> I don't think we should have mandatory namespace prefixes. 
> Implementations can use them if they want.

Examples should be added for this then, and maybe make it SUGGESTED...if
that is a a conformance term (probably should be SHOULD). If the
negotiation scheme I described can be used so the stream doesn't have to be
restarted, that'll have to be described somewhere. Hopefully in this JEP.

>> That, or something more accurate, should probably be noted some where in
>> the JEP. Most likely in the implementation notes.
> 
> Yes, perhaps these intents should be listed.

Yes, yes, they should.

- Nolan

-- 
http://www.semanticgap.com/people/sneakin/




More information about the Standards mailing list