[Standards-JIG] Re: xmpp.org Namespaces

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Fri Nov 3 22:59:19 UTC 2006

Remko Troncon wrote:
>> I don't really have a problem doing that. They're experimental. The
>> projects in this state are all active, and moving to the new namespaces
>> should be a snap.
> +1
> What is the point of having experimental XEPs if you can't change them
> because of existing experimental implementations.
> And also +1 on the URI change proposals.

Well, that raises a broader issue: should Experimental specs use
experimental namespaces and then be "upgraded" once they move to Draft?

Experimental: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0116.html

Draft: urn:xmpp:jingle

Probably not, too confusing. But it would clearly differentiate which
protocols are experimental and which are approved.


Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20061103/9c6f5623/attachment.bin>

More information about the Standards mailing list