The point is that: <stream:stream xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'> <message><gajim:die/></message> </stream>
contains an unbound prefix 'gajim', so MUST be rejected by all XMPP parsers.. If you want to send xml that looks similar to that, you need to transmit one of the following: <stream:stream xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams' xmlns:gajim=' http://gajim.org/'> <message><gajim:die/></message> </stream> or <stream:stream xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'> <message xmlns:gajim='http://gajim.org/'><gajim:die/></message> </stream> or <stream:stream xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'> <message><gajim:die xmlns:gajim='http://gajim.org/'/></message> </stream> In these examples the gajim prefix has been defined and is therefore acceptable. On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Sergei Golovan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/28/08, Fabio Forno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Sergei Golovan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > It could be true if XMPP were defined as a XML subset in a > consistent > > > way (currently, XMPP doesn't require stream to be > > > namesapce-well-formed, but allows to use XMLNS namespaces). > > > > > > Not true: http://www.xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc3920.html paragraph 4.5 > > In paragraph 11.3 you could see that the only property which server > must validate is XML well-formedness. So, it is perfectly acceptable > for XMPP stream not to be namespace-well-formed as defined in > http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/ > > -- > Sergei Golovan > -- - Norman Rasmussen - Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Home page: http://norman.rasmussen.co.za/
