[Standards-JIG] xmpp.org Namespaces
stpeter at jabber.org
Fri Nov 3 22:50:06 UTC 2006
Robert B Quattlebaum, Jr. wrote:
> On Nov 3, 2006, at 2:29 PM, Olivier Goffart wrote:
>> Le vendredi 3 novembre 2006 23:02, Robert B Quattlebaum, Jr. a écrit :
>>> 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?
>> The old http:// URL were pointing to nowhere in the general case.
>> So we don't loose anything in practice.
> Every one that I ever checked seemed to work. Not that it makes the case
> for using the urn:xmpp:* namespace any less compelling.
The argument in favor of URN namespaces is laid out here:
Basically URNs are more persistent than HTTP URLs (what if Jer gets hit
by a bus and we lose access to the jabber.org domain?). URNs are a
separate "tree" from URLs and do not depend on the DNS, instead they are
assigned through a managed process via the IETF/IANA and organizations
that apply to manage sub-trees (such as urn:xmpp:*).
The old http URLs resolve to friendly pages because the JEP Editor was
nice enough to auto-generate those pages from JEP header data. :-)
Nothing says we couldn't define a resolution mechanism for XMPP URNs
(via HTTP or XMPP or whatever), but we haven't done that yet.
IMHO it's not that critical to have self-documenting namespaces via HTTP
URLs. It's quite easy to type "urn:xmpp:jingle" into a search engine and
be sent to the appropriate specification. (Who needs DNS when you've got
Jabber Software Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards