[Standards] Questions pertaining to upcoming resubmission of Real Time Text standard (0.0.2)
dave at cridland.net
Mon May 16 16:24:46 UTC 2011
On Mon May 16 17:05:51 2011, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> On 5/12/11 12:22 AM, "Mark Rejhon" <markybox at gmail.com> wrote:
> > -- Using numbered sufix "urn:xmpp:rtt:0"
> > ADVANTAGE: Versioning by incrementing the final number;
> > DISADVANTAGE: Many parser libraries make it difficult to provide
> > forward/backward compatibility because they look for an exact
> xmlns value.
> > (Example: Smack Java library). I.e. an application would only
> work with a
> > specific exact 'xmlns'
> That is a feature. If the version number gets incremented, your
> implementation will need to process the protocols independently if
> you want
> to have both active at the same time. If you're able to share code
> them, that's an implementation detail, but as far as XMPP is
> concerned, they
> are effectively two completely separate protocol extensions.
Right - you can (and should, where possible) avoid incrementing the
version number, such as when an update is a superset of the original
protocol, or unchanged.
But when required syntax or behaviour changes to the point where
interoperability would fail, you can avoid tricky situations by
minting a new namespace from within a parent metanamespace, and so
avoid any experimental protocol leakage or "deployed base" issues
from having any serious effects.
 - Yes, I did just make that up. I can only apologise.
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
More information about the Standards