[Standards-JIG] xmpp.org Namespaces

Robert B Quattlebaum, Jr. darco at deepdarc.com
Fri Nov 3 22:02:26 UTC 2006


Using the urn:xmpp:* namespace names seems fine, but one nice thing  
about the previous namespace names was that it made the protocol  
somewhat self-documenting. Don't we loose that by doing this?

On Nov 3, 2006, at 12:05 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> Dave Cridland wrote:
>>>> On Fri Oct 13 09:12:04 2006, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 09:54:08AM +0200, Olivier Goffart wrote:
>>>>> It is about identity and globally unique identifier assigned  
>>>>> with some
>>>>> identity. http:// URLs are automatically assigned to persons  
>>>>> owning
>>>>> given URL space (controlling server under given domain and URL  
>>>>> path).
>>>>> That is very convenient for anyone that wants his own XML  
>>>>> namespace
>>>>> -- I guess it is much easier for an average Joe to get his http://
>>>>> namespace (just get some HTTP hosting) than to get hist own URN  
>>>>> prefix
>>>>> (does URN work this way? I am not sure).
>>>> Yes, although webhosting agreements, and even domain name  
>>>> assignments,
>>>> are not persistent, so it's not a perfect solution, whereas URN
>>>> assignments are, I believe, persistent and also free. Not that I'm
>>>> suggesting that everyone rushes out and gets a URN for their  
>>>> very own -
>>>> but it makes some sense to consider having the JSF get one for XMPP
>>>> namespaces, and assign from within it.
>>> Agreed. Not super high on my priority list, but I'll look at it more
>>> next week.
>>
>> I wrote up an I-D for this while traveling recently:
>>
>> http://www.xmpp.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-xmpp-urn-00.txt
>> http://www.xmpp.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-xmpp-urn-00.html
>>
>> I'll send the template to the URN-NID list soon.
>
> Done:
>
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn-nid/current/msg00487.html
>
> No objections have been raised yet. There is a two-week comment period
> on the URN-NID list. My understanding is that we probably can begin
> using these URNs after the comment period has ended.
>
> The more I think about, the more I want to use these URNs as soon as
> possible. At the next XMPP Council meeting (Monday, November 6) I will
> raise this issue. I would suggest that we not advance any further XMPP
> protocol extensions to Draft until we can use URNs for our namespace
> names. If we do that, the specs affected would be the Jingle specs as
> well as:
>
> XEP-0136: Message Archiving
> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0136.html
>
> XEP-0191: Simple Communications Blocking
> http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0191.html
>
> However, that would require changing the XML namespaces when we  
> advance
> those specs from Experimental to Draft (or before), as follows:
>
> from... http://jabber.org/protocol/jingle
> to... urn:xmpp:jingle
>
> from... http://jabber.org/protocol/jingle#errors
> to... urn:xmpp:jingle:errors
>
> from... http://jabber.org/protocol/jingle/description/audio
> to... urn:xmpp:jingle:description:audio
>
> from... http://jabber.org/protocol/jingle/info/audio
> to... urn:xmpp:jingle:info:audio
>
> from... http://jabber.org/protocol/jingle/transport/raw-udp
> to... urn:xmpp:jingle:transport:raw-udp
>
> from... http://jabber.org/protocol/blocking
> to... urn:xmpp:blocking
>
> from... http://jabber.org/protocol/archive
> to... urn:xmpp:archive
>
> from... http://jabber.org/protocol/blocking#errors
> to... urn:xmpp:blocking:errors
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Peter
>
> -- 
> Peter Saint-Andre
> Jabber Software Foundation
> http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml
>

__________________
Robert Quattlebaum
Jabber: darco at deepdarc.com
eMail:  darco at deepdarc.com
www:    http://www.deepdarc.com/





More information about the Standards mailing list