[Standards] BOSH (was HTTP Binding) namespaces

Mridul mridul at sun.com
Sun Mar 4 14:12:27 UTC 2007


Hi Ian,

   Makes sense.
Cant we not just import the client namespace to httpbind namespace 
without needing to copy ? Or is there some problems in doing that ?

Regards,
Mridul

Ian Paterson wrote:
> Alex Gnauck and Mridul have independantly pointed out the fact that all 
> XEP-0124 implementations (including my own) do not add "jabber:client" 
> namespace declarations to the stanzas they pass through (despite the 
> fact that all the examples in XEP-0124 include the namespace). This is 
> for a very good reason, since the connection manager is then able to 
> forward everything transparently between the client and server. However 
> the result does not conform with the schemas (or examples).
> 
> To allow transparent forwarding while staying true to the schemas, I'm 
> considering editing the schemas and the examples in XEP-0124 and XEP-0206:
> 
> 1. The schema defined in XEP-0124 will be renamed from 
> 'http://jabber.org/protocol/httpbind' to 'urn:xmpp:bosh' and all the 
> examples will be changed accordingly.
> 
> 2.The schema defined in XEP-0206 will be renamed from 'urn:xmpp:bosh' to 
> 'http://jabber.org/protocol/httpbind' and I will *copy and paste* the 
> content of the 'jabber:client' schema and the content of the schema 
> defined in XEP-0124 into that schema!
> 
> Therefore all the stanzas in the examples in XEP-0124 will include 
> "jabber:client" default namespace declarations, but these will be 
> omitted from the examples in XEP-0206 since everything will be covered 
> by the default namespace. In addition the "xmpp:" prefix will be omitted 
> from the examples in XEP-0206.
> 
> These changes will ensure that all existing (and future) implementations 
> magically become fully compliant with *XEP-0206* (even if not with the 
> schema defined in XEP-0124).
> 
> In the future the schema in XEP-0206 will need to be updated to reflect 
> any changes to the 'jabber:client' schema or to the schema defined in 
> XEP-0124, but those are likely to be stable.
> 
> Finally, I could swap the names of the two documents, so any references 
> to XEP-0124 or literature that claims an implementation is XEP-0124 
> compliant do not have to be changed.
> 
> What do implementors think?
> 
> - Ian
> 




More information about the Standards mailing list