[Standards-JIG] xmpp.org Namespaces
stpeter at jabber.org
Fri Oct 13 15:56:58 UTC 2006
Dave Cridland wrote:
> 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 some
>> identity. http:// URLs are automatically assigned to persons owning
>> given URL space (controlling server under given domain and URL path).
>> 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 prefix
>> (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.
Agreed. Not super high on my priority list, but I'll look at it more
> 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.
Unfortunately I don't think I'll be at the San Diego meeting, but I can
chat with my IANA friends about it. (Yes, they use Jabber too. ;-)
> 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.
Switching old namespaces is not a great idea IMHO, but it's good for new
ones. Though eventually we're going to have quite an alphabet soup of
namespace names... :-)
>> 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 JSF
>> protocol. For URNs some additional registry will be required.
Sure, that something I still need to do that after the JEP->XEP transition.
> 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.
There's a registry here:
> And, indeed, the only one I tried works, to a degree: Look at
> http://jabber.org/protocol/activity for example.
Yes, we have pages for all approved namespaces.
> I'd be highly curious
> to know what sort of traffic that page (and others presumably like it) get.
We'll have to check into our apache logs for that.
> In fact, you could go further, and use the fully qualified name of the
> element as a link to that element's definition.
Nice idea. But we do at least link to the schemas.
Jabber Software Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards