On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 14:00 -0500, Arjun Nair wrote: > > The full schema is in Page 17 - http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3680.txt > > I am not sure, but I think the path element would fall under "<xs:any > namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="0" > maxOccurs="unbounded"/>".. Also, what do you mean by maintaining > backwards compatibly (i.e. with what)?
I believe you're correct. There are schema validators that would tell us (I don't know if the one we use for schema checking would pass that or not, but it's not a hard experiment to try). > Alternatively, we could encode the path header into the uri, i.e. > > <uri>sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];Route=my.path.com</uri> to be unambiguous, I'd make that: <uri><sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED];Route=my.path.com></uri> I suspect that this course is less likely to cause interop problems, but only trying them will tell. _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
