2007/6/18, Ian Paterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Rachel Blackman wrote:
> I admit I still do not quite see why we should not just use the
> namespace in place of 'jingle-audio,' as far as this goes. Yeah, okay,
> it's a little longer, but on the other hand it has all the information
> we need. If you support that namespace, you know that namespace, thus
> you know the application type. If you don't support that namespace,
> then knowing the other side supports it is fundamentally fairly
> useless to you anyway.
I agree. The meanings of the namespaces are already well defined and
understood. If we create new app names then we will need to define what
those names mean in a normative way. We might even have to define what
particular combinations of namespaces and app names mean! App names
would seem to add complexity. I'm not convinced they add value that is
worth the pain.
I agree. I could imagine the total network traffic could be even
smaller, because some iq requests wouldn't be needed.
-lauri
