[Standards-JIG] Re: xmpp.org Namespaces

Maciek Niedzielski machekku at uaznia.net
Fri Nov 3 23:09:43 UTC 2006

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Well, that raises a broader issue: should Experimental specs use
> experimental namespaces and then be "upgraded" once they move to Draft?
> (...)
> Probably not, too confusing. But it would clearly differentiate which
> protocols are experimental and which are approved.

Yes, it sounds confusing. But on the other hand: I just remembered one
of proto-JEP about exchanging roster items that never got accepted. It
is not accepted, but there are existing implementations, using
http://jabber.org/something namespace. This may be confusing, too. Some
time ago someone came to this list asking about that protocol, because
there was no information on the JEP list but the protocol looked like an
official one.
So maybe at least proto-XEPs should use temporary namespaces?

Maciek                       A: It's against natural order of reading.
 xmpp:machekku at uaznia.net   Q: Why is that?
 xmpp:machekku at chrome.pl   A: People answering above quoted text.
                          Q: What's the most annoying on newsgroups?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 257 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20061104/455780fe/attachment.sig>

More information about the Standards mailing list