Hi Tobias, I do not think that this is formally agreed upon. I think that the point of contention is that we have not agreed if the name-value pairs will be supported by xpcom in the contract id. Certainly, a developer can use any string as a contract id including strings with name-value pairs. However, there is not any xpcom services which will parse these pairs from a contract id.
If you take a look at the network stream converter code, they use parameters 'from=' and 'to='. This works fine since xpcom does not care what a contract id string looks like as so long as it follows the basic format you listed below (eg. eventually, xpcom will look at the version part and return the most current version if none is specified by the contract id). I hope this helps. Doug Turner Tobias Oberstein wrote: > I've noticed Rick Parrish talking about well formed ContractIDs on .. > http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/co-xpcom2.html > > According to this, "The recommended format of a contract ID is a one-line > string as follows:" > > @<internetdomain>/module[/submodule[...]];<version>[?<name>=<value>[&<name>= > <value>[...]]] > > Is this part of the XPCOM mantra, formally agreed? > At least from a pure syntactical viewpoint, leaving semantics aside? > Just best practice? > > Toby. > > > >
