justin-keyword-jabber.093179 at affinix.com
Mon Sep 29 23:27:49 UTC 2008
On Monday 29 September 2008 12:13:52 Dave Cridland wrote:
> One reason is that we forbid the declaration of extension namespaces
> (with a MUST NOT) at stream level. Now, as it happens, many
> implementations cope with this fine, but in principle, they need not
> - you could chop stanzas out and not rewrap them in the original
> <stream:stream/> and be legal, for example.
XEP-198 elements are not stanzas, and don't need to exist outside the context
of the <stream> they are part of.
If XMPP-Core forbids declaring namespace prefixes in <stream>, then IMO this
restriction should be relaxed in the bis draft.
I understand that declaring a namespace prefix in <stream> and then using it
in a stanza could result in some routability problems, but I think this is
only an issue for naive implementations?
> I'm inclined to say, therefore, that either we redeclare the
> namespace on each XEP-0198 element, or else we just say that XEP-0198
> extends the jabber:server and jabber:client namespaces - the latter
> is uglier in the specification, but much cleaner on the wire.
FWIW, dialback also uses a stream-level prefix, which would violate the
existing rule you speak of.
More information about the Standards