well put :-) I would like to know reasons that this is not considered acceptable - I have plenty of points against it in my mind in the way of backwards compatiblity and server workload, but no solid points for it.
-David Waite Jeremie wrote: >>It seems simply that jabberd is not namespace aware, hence it is >>not conformant with the standards it claims to use. >> > >Not true, it's use is conformant with namespaces, it is only using a >subset of the specification in this case. This is no different from the >use of XML, in that there is no support for entities, prologs, etc, and >only a subset of XML is actually being used. Other than the namespaces >the server uses itself, all other uses (between clients, services, or any >software sending xml via jabber) may use namespaces in any way they >choose. > >>Being stuck >>with UTF-8 is an acceptable constraint (ok with respect to the >>standard) but a so inaccurate support of namespaces is not. >> Are there any plans to a) upgrade libxode or b) switch to a >>conformant parser (xerces in sax2 mode comes to mind) ? >> > >There are no plans for this type of overhaul for the 1.4 codebase as most >of the server development effort is being put into jabelin. At this point >a server supporting namespaces in such a way would have to translate all >namespace usage into the current "flat" format for existing clients and >servers it delivers to, supporting the feature in this way would offer >no benefit to anyone other than the sender. > >I do agree that it would be very nice and we should work towards a new rev >of the protocol specification in the future that encourages using >namespaces more broadly (after we get the current one well defined of >course). > >Jer > >_______________________________________________ >jdev mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev > _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
