[Standards-JIG] Re: JEP-0091: Delayed Delivery
stpeter at jabber.org
Wed Feb 22 02:50:00 UTC 2006
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> There is no requirement for XMPP XML to be in canonical form that I know
No, there is not. Plus it would be even more busy-work to clean up all
the examples in all the specs to adhere to that, especially since "we
put the example in example.com" and our specs have lots and lots of
> As well, http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-starttags says:
> "Note that the order of attribute specifications in a start-tag or
> empty-element tag is not significant."
> RFC 3920 calls out http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/, not
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-names11/. At
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml-names/#ns-decl we see this:
> "A namespace is declared using a family of reserved attributes. Such an
> attribute's name must either be xmlns or have xmlns: as a prefix. These
> attributes, like any other XML attributes..."
> Therefore, xmlns= and xmlns:foo= are just attributes, and attribute
> order is not significant.
> In particular, many DOM implementations do not surface the order that
> attributes came in.
> In practice, almost ALL XMPP processors that I've run into don't care
> about the order that their attributes are serialized, so you're going to
> get them out of order no matter what you think is correct. :)
> Conclusion: you must parse the entire start-tag or empty-element before
> you know what namespace it, or any of it's attributes are in.
> Corollary: stpeter, if you want to reorder attributes in examples to
> make them easier to read, cool, but there's no need, it's just busy-work.
Jabber Software Foundation
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3641 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards