You might want to read this: http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/
As well as the documents referenced from here: http://www.jabber.org/ietf/ Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre Jabber Software Foundation http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.html On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Kriggs wrote: > I'd like some confirmation on something right now. Can someone tell me if I'm > right in the following examples: > > <a:b/> > <a b="value"/> > <tag a:b="value"/> > <a><b/></a> > <a xmlns="r"> > > where a is b's parent, and r is root? And am I forgetting anything? > > OK, now to talk about a part of the Programmer's Guide that lost me: > > "[...] The Jabber DTD is referenced from other XML documents and streams with > the identifier jabber:client. > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?> > > <!-- The root of it all. --> > > <!ELEMENT jabber (( > presence | > iq | > message > )*)>" > > So the jabber element contains presence, iq and message. Where did x and > error go? And does the jabber here mean jabber:client:jabber? Which would > mean that for those tags, (presence, iq, message, ...) the jabber:... is > implied? Maybe it means stream:stream:jabber, with jabber:... still implied, > in which case the xmlns... just confuses me... Or maybe it's an error in the > documentation? Or maybe I'm not seeing something? > > The clearest idea I have so far is that stream:stream is a "function" tag > that uses the jabber:client namespace. So everything inside of the > stream:stream uses jabber:client as it's parent. jabber:... would not be > implied, and so presence, iq, message, etc. would actually be > jabber:client:presence, jabber:client:iq, jabber:client:message, etc... All > (or most) namespaces, such as jabber:iq:auth and jabber:iq:version, pull from > the root level, meaning that jabber: is filled with a bunch of namespaces, > and jabber:client contains only the "function" tags. The root tags would be > stream: (for the transport layer's independence from jabber), jabber, and > anything we'd want to invent? If I didn't keep getting the impression that > there's an implied "jabber:..." in front of the main "function" tags, I would > have a better time believing my explanation :) > > If the answer to all my hoohaa is that jabber just fakes having a > structure... well, for starters, I'd be very disappointed in what seemed like > such a good effort, then I'd use the explanation I've come up with, despite > it all. The chances of jabber evolving to have a tag of the same name at the > exact wrong place seems unlikely. > > Can anyone tell me where I'm wrong and/or right in all this? > > Thank you! > > -Kriggs > RBJab > _______________________________________________ > jdev mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev > _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
