[Standards-JIG] xmpp.org Namespaces
dave at cridland.net
Fri Oct 13 08:51:02 UTC 2006
On Fri Oct 13 09:12:04 2006, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 09:54:08AM +0200, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> > Le vendredi 13 octobre 2006 00:01, Joe Hildebrand a écrit :
> > > They aren't URLs. They are URIs.
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Resource_Identifier
> > > I know that, read my mail again.
> > But an URI starting with http:// when it's not at all http is
> wrong IMO
Well, it is a valid opinion. Just not one that's shared by everyone.
I believe it's even detailed in that page.
> It is about identity and globally unique identifier assigned with
> identity. http:// URLs are automatically assigned to persons owning
> given URL space (controlling server under given domain and URL
> That is very convenient for anyone that wants his own XML namespace
> -- I guess it is much easier for an average Joe to get his http://
> namespace (just get some HTTP hosting) than to get hist own URN
> (does URN work this way? I am not sure).
Yes, although webhosting agreements, and even domain name
assignments, are not persistent, so it's not a perfect solution,
whereas URN assignments are, I believe, persistent and also free. Not
that I'm suggesting that everyone rushes out and gets a URN for their
very own - but it makes some sense to consider having the JSF get one
for XMPP namespaces, and assign from within it.
For anyone going to the IETF in a couple of weeks, it might be
worthwhile finding out about URN assignments and registries from
IANA, and discussing ways and means of accomplishing what we want
with the IESG people.
There's even a reasonable chance we could make a switchover from http
schemed URL namespaces to URN based ones, for the core protocol,
although I might be clutching at straws, there, and besides, I'm not
sure there's sufficient benefit to outweigh the cost.
> And it won't make sense to
> assign URN for Joe if the XML namespace will be just temporary (e.g.
> some testing or prototyping).
This is certainly true. But http scheme URIs are spot on for that
kind of work, being (by comparison) ephemeral. No prototyping work or
experimentation is likely to outlive the website it's detailed on.
Of course, for that kind of work, an xmpp: scheme URI might be more
than just a wild idea.
> For JSF things are simpler, of course. But http URIs may be still
> convenient. Just add the HTTP redirection from the namespace URIs
> to the
> XEPs URLs and it will be trivial to find a documentation for a new
> protocol. For URNs some additional registry will be required.
I think a registry is still needed for JSF-originated extensions -
ie, XEPs and XMPP itself. I don't think you can precisely ignore
that, although there is, as I said before, a certain amount of
cuteness in encouraging any http scheme namespaces to point to, or
redirect to, the definition of the namespace - and, of course, the
act of doing so in effect creates its own registry of sorts - but a
simple listing of namespaces is more useful.
And, indeed, the only one I tried works, to a degree: Look at
http://jabber.org/protocol/activity for example. I'd be highly
curious to know what sort of traffic that page (and others presumably
like it) get.
In fact, you could go further, and use the fully qualified name of
the element as a link to that element's definition.
It's all very cute, but I can't see any practical benefit sufficient
to outweigh the administrative time this would use up. The people
interested in the definition of the namespace and elements within it
are, hopefully, capable of finding and looking through
http://www.xmpp.org/registrar/namespaces.html - I did, without much
effort, and I'm not exactly an XML genius.
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at jabber.org
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
More information about the Standards