[Standards] Namespaces, specifications, and protocol life cycles
pavlix at pavlix.net
Tue Sep 23 20:33:01 UTC 2008
I'm deligted you finally took my idea.
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:24:40 -0600
Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
> Kevin Smith wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net>
> > wrote:
> >> urn:xmpp:protoname:1
> > Sane.
> Kev and I just chatted about this via IM. So I take it that we'd start
> with urn:xmpp:protoname:0 and increment from there? I'm fine with
> that, and it does seem more sane than the :tmp: approach.
> I'm working on Jingle right now, so I wonder about things like this:
> Which of the following does that become?
> 1. urn:xmpp:jingle:0:apps:rtp
> 2. urn:xmpp:jingle:apps:rtp:0
> I think I prefer the number at the end in all cases.
> Shall we update all the Jingle namespaces along these lines? I'd be
> happy to do that during the current revision cycle. Speaking of which,
> back to work...
Freelancer v oblasti počítačových sítí, komunikace a bezpečnosti
Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net
More information about the Standards