[Standards] Stanza namespaces

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Wed Apr 28 17:06:46 UTC 2010

On Wed Apr 28 17:59:17 2010, Justin Karneges wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 April 2010 04:05:32 Dave Cridland wrote:
> > Besides which, it's really not that much effort on the part of the
> > server to translate between namespaces, surely?
> It's awkward usage of XML.  I'd like to phase out such usages that  
> cause
> people to react with "what were they thinking?".  Standardizing on
> jabber:client for stanzas, regardless of the stream they are  
> carried over, is
> the right move.
The stanzas aren't actually the problem - it's the <body> etc beneath  
that are eyebrow-waggle-inducing.

But it's still just how things are.

> > That aside, we cannot get rid of either:
> Right, we can't.  At best, we could have text saying that on s2s  
> connections
> the jabber:server namespace MUST be supported and the jabber:client  
> namespace
> SHOULD be supported, with a note that almost all existing servers  
> support
> just jabber:server.  In reality this will mean everyone will  
> continue to use
> jabber:server and no real change would have happened, but I don't  
> know what
> else to suggest.

Changes that result in nothing are certainly not worth doing - it'd  
be at best a political change.

The fact is, all protocols have weird warts. XMPP's is this namespace  
thing (at least, one of them - there are of course others). I could  
cheerfully list warts for any other well-deployed protocol, and XMPP  
really isn't as bad as most.

That doesn't mean it's fixable, and doesn't mean we can ignore it.

Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

More information about the Standards mailing list