[Standards-JIG] Why is S2S on 5269 and not 5222?

Matthias Wimmer m at tthias.eu
Sun Dec 3 14:26:06 UTC 2006

Hi Ralph!

Ralph Meijer schrieb:
> Ok, I see you try real hard to misread the intension of the document. The
> idea is that the default namespace is the one that contains the
> elements that, together with their child nodes, are known as stanzas
> (named iq, message and presence).

I am never trying hard to misread something, but I am trying hard to
implement everything as it is written. And if there is a difference in
what is written and what has been intended, I indeet follow what is
written, as this is something that can be decided to be true or false.
If we start implementing what we guess, that had been the intention, we
start getting compatibility problems where nobody can tell who is wrong.

> The text hints in this direction by speaking of '[..] content (as
> opposed to stream) namespaces [..]'.
> If you really want to, we can make this clearer in RFC3920bis.

Making it clearer would be good. But it should not be, that we require
to have a default namespace declaration of 'jabber:client' or
'jabber:server' on the root element. I'd much more prefere to remove the
restriction on having to define a default namespace on the stream root
element completely, and just make this a SHOULD.

I cannot see a reason why we should forbid using other (or no) default
namespaces on the root element beside compatibility with legacy
implementations. And compatibility with legacy implementations should
IMHO always just be a SHOULD, as there might be reasons to break this
compatibility sometime in the future.

Tot kijk

Matthias Wimmer      Fon +49-700 77 00 77 70
Züricher Str. 243    Fax +49-89 95 89 91 56
81476 München        http://ma.tthias.eu/

More information about the Standards mailing list