[Standards-JIG] Re: xmpp.org Namespaces
stpeter at jabber.org
Fri Nov 3 23:21:34 UTC 2006
Maciek Niedzielski wrote:
> 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?
This is in fact a good argument for assigning urn:xmpp:foo namespaces
only for approved protocols. Many documents have been published as JEPs
(now XEPs) and have been discussed within our standards process, but
they were never approved. Yet those documents contain the old-style
http://jabber.org/protocol/foo namespaces, indicating that perhaps the
protocol is somehow official. If experimental protocols used namespace
names like http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0166.html then someone
could easily go to that page and see that the specification has or has
not been approved. But once it has been approved, it gets a permanent
However, this is a separate issue from whether we seek assignment of an
xmpp Namespace ID, which I still think is a good thing. Exactly when we
issue such URNs is a matter of JSF policy, which we should add to
XEP-0001 and/or XEP-0053 once we define it.
Jabber Software Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards