[Standards] XEP-0301 Annual review (In-Band Real Time Text)

Sam Whited sam at samwhited.com
Tue Sep 29 20:56:44 UTC 2015


On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Mark Rejhon <markybox at gmail.com> wrote:
> If we fix the schema, would this force namespace to increment:
> i.e. urn:xmpp:rtt:1 instead of urn:xmpp:rtt:0
>
> My commentary: All developers have complied with the assumed latter schema,
> since it was obvious from the rest of the spec.  All existing XEP-0301
> implementations comply with the latter schema.  Therefore, implementations
> have correctly implied the correct usage.  Thus, I don't think namespace
> should need to increment.
>
> Comments?

If existing implementations already do this, I see no reason to bump
the namespace. In fact, this would be counterproductive as it would
basically just be requiring each client to advertise both :0 and :1 or
break compatibility. Since the upgrade wouldn't break any
compatibility, no namespace bump is necessary (IMO).

Thanks for doing an annual review; I think this is a great idea, and
if it's not documented as a requirement somewhere it should be! I've
added this to my calendar so that I remember to do it in years to come
:)

Best,
Sam



-- 
Sam Whited
pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3
https://blog.samwhited.com


More information about the Standards mailing list