[Standards-JIG] Re: xmpp.org Namespaces
stpeter at jabber.org
Fri Nov 3 23:06:44 UTC 2006
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 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.
>> 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
Er, I meant 0166. :-)
> Draft: urn:xmpp:jingle
> Probably not, too confusing. But it would clearly differentiate which
> protocols are experimental and which are approved.
BTW, this is what they did in the Atom WG.
The Internet-Drafts specified namespaces like this:
Whereas the published RFC has:
This approach does not seem to have caused any problems (and Atom is
deployed very widely).
Jabber Software Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards