[Standards] Namespaces, specifications, and protocol life cycles
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:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 6751 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards