[Standards] Namespaces, specifications, and protocol life cycles

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Sep 10 01:54:19 UTC 2008


Dave Cridland wrote:

> the advantage here is that if the protocol is 
> stable earlier than its move to Draft - and actually, this is normally 
> the case, a lot of the pre-draft stuff is specification wrangling rather 
> than proptocol redesign - people can go ahead and implement it, and 
> it'll continue to work.
> 
> Otherwise, as we get closer to Draft, we're actually putting people off 
> implementation at the very moment we want to encourage it.

I think that's the key bit.

But how much are developers scared off by the need to support both 
urn:xmpp:tmp:foo and urn:xmpp:foo? It seems to me that's just a simple 
switch statement in your code.

Also, it's not clear how we'd handle sub-namespaces:

urn:xmpp:foo:4:sub

or

urn:xmpp:foo:sub:4

?

Peter

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 6751 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20080909/820fed9f/attachment.bin>


More information about the Standards mailing list