[Standards] Adding namespaced content to Registry entries

Florian Schmaus flo at geekplace.eu
Wed Jun 10 15:35:06 UTC 2020

On 6/3/20 10:50 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:> That said, I think there's two
useful things we can do here:
> 1) Validation information is clearly useful in this case; we should add
> that to the XEP-0068 registry by an update to XEP-0068 

I would like to avoid steering us in a world where we are required to
explicitly mark registry entries as extensible. Instead, registry
entries should simply assumed to be extensible. Just like we assume that
XML elements are extensible in XMPP, and for that reason also do not
explicitly declare that extensibility in your XML schemas (minus a few

Otherwise, we would need to perform this over and over again for every
add-on XEP that deals with elements that are part of a registry, for no
reason. There is *no* advantage in explicit stating it: Just as on the
protocol level, either the extended additional information was
negotiated, and you are prepared for it, or you are not required to
understand it, and can simply ignore it while processing the registry entry.

- Florian

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 618 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20200610/9ee1fe59/attachment.sig>

More information about the Standards mailing list