[Standards] [Operators] Future of XMPP Re: The Google issue

Evgeny Khramtsov xramtsov at gmail.com
Thu Dec 5 01:17:01 UTC 2013


Wed, 4 Dec 2013 14:44:36 +0000
Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:

> XMPP is *not* a hard-schema protocol for the most part - we can and do
> cheerfully sling extra elements and attributes in all over the shop.
> Only the core is hard - that is, the stanzas and stream - the rest
> should be considered simply "complete as far as they go".

Good schema protocols assume you can add some extra elements. XMPP
doesn't provide any schemas at all. Yes, there are XML schemas, but
those are pointless inefficient crap. Not saying that for many XEPs
they are incorrect or even missing.

Implementators are *required* to write silly validation code which will
consume 50% of the total code easily. Take a look inside any XMPP
implementation: most of the time you will see tag/attribute checks like
"is it required?", "is it an integer?", "does it have CDATA?" and so
on. A waste of a time and a source of errors.

I consider this as a very major problem. XMPP 2.0, if we're talking
about it, should target this in the first place. For example, with
protobuffs/thrift/asn1 we wouldn't have those problems.



More information about the Standards mailing list