Thanks David. I appreciate your mail.
--Ivan
PS -- is there any non-visual basic, perhaps C or C++ library for doing client
or server work available yet? I'm thinking about starting one for my own use...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> David Waite
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 11:06 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [JDEV] Transport Decisions
>
>
> "Ivan R. Judson" wrote:
>
> > Hey There,
> >
> > Ok. I've groked the situation of the XML Stream being it's own
> thing. Now, is
> > there a Schema or DTD for what an XML Stream is? It appears to me
> to be it's
> > own namespace at least...what are the valid attributes, etc?
> >
>
> etherx.jabber.org is no longer a virtualdomain for jabber.org, but the basic
> structure is:
>
> <!DOCTYPE xmlstream [
> <!ELEMENT stream error?>
> <!ELEMENT error (#PCDATA)>
> ]>
>
> forgive my horrid lack of DTDing skills. Within jabber, the xmlstream
> namespace
> always is represented with a streams: prefix, and always contains another
> namespace within it representing the actual 'protocol' being talked.
>
> For instance, some of the jabber DTD would be
> <!DOCTYPE jabberclient [
> <!ELEMENT jabber (message|iq|presence)*>
> <!ATTLIST jabber
> to CDATA #IMPLIED
> from CDATA #IMPLIED
> id CDATA #IMPLIED>
> ...
> ]>
>
> so these together form the root element.
>
> -David Waite
>
> > --Ivan
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > > Thomas Charron
> > > Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 6:41 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: [JDEV] Transport Decisions
> > >
> > >
> > > From: "Ivan R. Judson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Subject: [JDEV] Transport Decisions
> > > > I'm delving deep into the jabber server architecture and the protocols.
> > > I'm
> > > > wondering however if there's a thread somewhere talking about
> the decision
> > > to
> > > > create the stream:stream namespace instead of using XML-RPC or SOAP?
> > >
> > > XML-RPC and SOAP use a variety of existing protocols as
> transports, and
> > > ride the actual XML payload on top of them. The stream namespace is
> > > basically strait XML over the socket. Don't think of it as a replacement
> > > for XML-RPC or SOAP. Think of it as just another transport. One
> could just
> > > as easily do XML-RPC and SOAP over the stream socket protocol.
> > >
> > > > I'm wondering if an evaluation of the merits has been done and
> if there's
> > > > anything I can read about that decision.
> > >
> > > See above. There are no socket streamed XML transports out
> there. the
> > > 'etherx scheme' provides this.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > jdev mailing list
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > jdev mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
>
> _______________________________________________
> jdev mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
>
_______________________________________________
jdev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
