[Standards] Adding namespaced content to Registry entries

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Thu Jun 11 21:45:11 UTC 2020


On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 16:39, Florian Schmaus <flo at geekplace.eu> wrote:

> 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
> exceptions).
>
>
Can I use private extensions in registry entries?

Can I use ones defined outside the XSF?

Can I use a Historic extension within a Standards Track registry?

Can I use an Experimental extension within a registry defined in Draft?
Deprecated? Retracted?

What about a versioned namespace when it becomes obsoleted by a new version?


> 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.


Well, I think there is a reason, obviously, otherwise I wouldn't have come
to the conclusion I did - just as we don't arbitrarily extend XEPs and tell
people to just ignore the bits they don't understand when rendering,
registries are formal documents, not protocols.


> 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.


Ah, but we do negotiate precisely what it allowed in a registry - it's in
the registry definition.

Moreover, the fact registry documents are held in Git as version-controlled
XML documents is an implementation detail - the definition is actually much
looser, and for example
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0030.html#registrar stipulates
an HTML page, not an XML document (and indeed the registry entries are not
defined to use any namespaces).

Dave.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20200611/9f864a06/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list