[Jabber-IETF] Agenda items
Pete.Chown at skygate.co.uk
Sun Oct 13 11:15:33 CDT 2002
Iain Shigeoka wrote:
> I'm a bit concerned about the flexibility of XML
> in a wire protocol. As in this example, there are multiple XML compliant
> ways of doing the same thing. The KISS principle makes me a bit
> uncomfortable with this.
IMHO, the KISS principle says that you *should* allow the full
flexibility of XML, like you allow the full flexibility of TCP and IP.
Layered protocol design allows code reuse *provided* that the lower
layers are always implemented the same way.
> Part of the simplicity of the current Jabber
> implementations is that jabberd is essentially the rosetta stone for
> clients. Practically speaking, there is only one form of tag names,
> prefixes, and namespaces in the wild.
Of course all client designers want to interoperate with jabberd, but
there are other servers. There are a few commercial servers, including
the jabber.com one, there is a Java server, and so on. In writing the
standard we shouldn't just be documenting jabberd, we need to think
about whether the current protocol is optimal in all respects. Ideally
we need to do this without breaking current implementations. There
should be no such breakage with the namespace compliance proposal.
More information about the xmppwg