On 15 May 2005, at 6:51, Tijl Houtbeckers wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2005 09:12:21 +0200, Julian Missig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It is, however, against typical Jabber convention. It's legal XML, but it's not Jabber convention. Jabber convention is to use the <x/ > element.
Julian
I have been using and developing with Jabber for many years now, and never took notice of this "convention". Might I add that if such a convention exists, I propose it to be deemed "silly" and no longer be followed. +1 please.
Seriously now.. what's the point of calling it x? Maybe in the era before namespace-aware parsers this could have been *slighty* usefull, but nowadays?
Well, see, this last bit is why it was Jabber convention. There are a lot of parsers out there which are still not namespace-aware, so having everything use <x/> makes their lives easier. I never said *everything* in Jabber uses it or *everything* in the future must use it. I was simply stating that it is Jabber convention. There are indeed newer JEPs which don't follow that convention, but there are also new JEPs which do follow the convention.
I won't pretend to care whether people follow this convention or not (gee, you might even find my name on popular JEPs which don't use <x/ >), I was simply informing him why a bunch of people were going to say it's "wrong" to not have it in <x/> and then a bunch of other people will say its "wrong" to use <x/>. Both types of replies have been made ad nauseam to this thread already, so it looks like it was a good move on my part to let the initial poster know.
Calm down everyone, it's not like I do anything Jabber-related except whine.
Julian
_______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
