[Standards-JIG] JEP-0163: payload type vs. namespace

Jean-Louis Seguineau jean-louis.seguineau at laposte.net
Thu Sep 7 06:43:21 UTC 2006


It's an excellent idea. In any case we already started the process by
registering disco nodes. In general, we already use the concept of
namespace+node in many places. I believe it would be good practice to extend
the registry to "well known" nodes for the whole of XMPP anyway. 

+1

Jean-Louis

-----Original Message-----
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 20:27:10 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org>
Subject: [Standards-JIG] JEP-0163: payload type vs. namespace
To: standards-jig at jabber.org
Message-ID: <44FF837E.4060407 at jabber.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

I'm a bit uncomfortable with principle #3 of JEP-0163 (PEP), which
states that there is one node per namespace. I think it's more accurate
to say that there is one node per payload type. This matters because we
could potentially use the same namespace for different payload types.
For example, the Atom format could be used for blog updates, new
releases, and who knows what else. But then it seems that perhaps we
need a registry of payload types?

Peter






More information about the Standards mailing list