Manuel Castelo Branco
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Standards Digest, Vol 44, Issue 84
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:36:36 -0500
>Send Standards mailing list submissions to
> [email protected]
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of Standards digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: <[CDATA[ in XMPP (Tobias S. Josefowitz)
> 2. Re: <[CDATA[ in XMPP (Peter Saint-Andre)
> 3. Re: <[CDATA[ in XMPP (Tobias S. Josefowitz)
> 4. Re: <[CDATA[ in XMPP (Robin Redeker)
> 5. Re: <[CDATA[ in XMPP (Mickael Remond)
> 6. Re: <[CDATA[ in XMPP (Rachel Blackman)
> 7. Re: <[CDATA[ in XMPP (Robin Redeker)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:55:33 +0200
>From: "Tobias S. Josefowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [Standards] <[CDATA[ in XMPP
>To: "XMPP Extension Discussion List" <[email protected]>
>Message-ID:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>On 7/31/07, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Similarly, a complete XMPP session (with start and end stream tags) is a
> > conforming XML document. Just because the session does not include
> > comments, processing instructions, DTD subsets, entity references other
> > than those predefined in the XML spec, other other restricted features
> > does not mean that the session is not an XML document.
>
>Unless for example starttls comes into play... exceptions everywhere.
>Is that the existence of a rule I am sensing here?
>
>Tobias
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:00:09 -0600
>From: Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [Standards] <[CDATA[ in XMPP
>To: XMPP Extension Discussion List <[email protected]>
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>Tobias S. Josefowitz wrote:
> > On 7/31/07, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Similarly, a complete XMPP session (with start and end stream tags) is a
> >> conforming XML document. Just because the session does not include
> >> comments, processing instructions, DTD subsets, entity references other
> >> than those predefined in the XML spec, other other restricted features
> >> does not mean that the session is not an XML document.
> >
> > Unless for example starttls comes into play... exceptions everywhere.
> > Is that the existence of a rule I am sensing here?
>
>How does the inclusion of STARTTLS negotiation cause the complete XML
>stream to not be an XML document?
>
>
>-------------- next part --------------
>A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>Name: smime.p7s
>Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
>Size: 7354 bytes
>Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
>Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070730/34f1ffb9/attachment-0001.bin
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 01:07:28 +0200
>From: "Tobias S. Josefowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [Standards] <[CDATA[ in XMPP
>To: "XMPP Extension Discussion List" <[email protected]>
>Message-ID:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>On 7/31/07, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > How does the inclusion of STARTTLS negotiation cause the complete XML
> > stream to not be an XML document?
>
>simplified:
>
>echo
>"<stream><startls/>FIWOEHFWEUIFH#*(WUFH(#*FDHPE*H([EMAIL PROTECTED](&@RH(@#*FH#@([EMAIL PROTECTED](#@
>*R&[EMAIL PROTECTED]&@[EMAIL PROTECTED]@#)*$TH$#" | xmlwf
>STDIN:1:59: not well-formed (invalid token)
>
>You probably get the idea.
>
>Tobias
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 01:11:20 +0200
>From: Robin Redeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [Standards] <[CDATA[ in XMPP
>To: [email protected]
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 05:00:09PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > Tobias S. Josefowitz wrote:
> > > On 7/31/07, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Similarly, a complete XMPP session (with start and end stream tags) is a
> > >> conforming XML document. Just because the session does not include
> > >> comments, processing instructions, DTD subsets, entity references other
> > >> than those predefined in the XML spec, other other restricted features
> > >> does not mean that the session is not an XML document.
> > >
> > > Unless for example starttls comes into play... exceptions everywhere.
> > > Is that the existence of a rule I am sensing here?
> >
> > How does the inclusion of STARTTLS negotiation cause the complete XML
> > stream to not be an XML document?
>
>http://www.ta-sa.org/files/txt/ba19c3c423064ce6ca0a21b7dd7183d5.txt
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:16:24 -0500 (CDT)
>From: "Mickael Remond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [Standards] <[CDATA[ in XMPP
>To: "XMPP Extension Discussion List" <[email protected]>
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
>Hello,
>
>Regarding this discussion, it seems that the topic started about the use
>of CDATA.
>So, we are talking about way to escape characters in an XML stream. My
>view is that all way to escape characters are good, especially when they
>are defined in XML, cited in XMPP RFC and are simple to implement (and
>implemented by all parsers I know).
>
>I have tested the use of CDATA for example with Psi, Gajim and a few other
>clients and all of them were fine.
>As Peter said, it should probably be allowed if not explicitely forbidden.
>
>My view is that it should be allowed as, as I understand it, it is just
>one of the possible way to escape characters (and not the worst one).
>
>--
>Micka?l R?mond
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:18:23 -0700
>From: Rachel Blackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [Standards] <[CDATA[ in XMPP
>To: XMPP Extension Discussion List <[email protected]>
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>
>On Jul 30, 2007, at 4:07 PM, Tobias S. Josefowitz wrote:
>
> > On 7/31/07, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> How does the inclusion of STARTTLS negotiation cause the complete XML
> >> stream to not be an XML document?
> >
> > simplified:
> >
> > echo
> > "<stream><startls/>FIWOEHFWEUIFH#*(WUFH(#*FDHPE*H([EMAIL PROTECTED](&@RH
> > (@#*FH#@([EMAIL PROTECTED](#@
> > *R&[EMAIL PROTECTED]&@[EMAIL PROTECTED]@#)*$TH$#" | xmlwf
> > STDIN:1:59: not well-formed (invalid token)
> >
> > You probably get the idea.
>
>Not that I disagree that XMPP should be defined as a rational subset
>of XML, rather than including the whole spec, but... this seems to be
>needlessly splitting hairs, to me.
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but the definition of XMPP is that you /
>restart the stream/ when you get an opening <stream> element (such as
>after starttls or whatever). Given that the stream starts over with
>the new <stream>, the complete XML stream is indeed still a complete
>and valid document.
>
>(I assume that for the sake of sanity -- and given that at that point
>the /entire stream/ is encrypted -- we can assume that a stream would
>be decrypted before being validated.)
>
>--
>Rachel Blackman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Trillian Messenger - http://www.trillianastra.com/
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 7
>Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 01:30:03 +0200
>From: Robin Redeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [Standards] <[CDATA[ in XMPP
>To: [email protected]
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 04:48:53PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > Robin Redeker wrote:
> > > If we don't call something XML which clearly is not XML, then there
> > > aren't any further confusions possible.
> > >
> > > But still the term 'XML' is quite often used in the XMPP specs.
> >
> > Interestingly, the first paragraph of the XML specification says:
> >
> > ***
> >
> > Extensible Markup Language, abbreviated XML, describes a class of data
> > objects called XML documents and partially describes the behavior of
> > computer programs which process them. XML is an application profile or
> > restricted form of SGML, the Standard Generalized Markup Language [ISO
> > 8879]. By construction, XML documents are conforming SGML documents.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > Is it true that "XML is SGML"? Obviously some SGML pedants would object
> > because XML is "an application profile or restricted form of SGML". Yet
> > "XML documents are conforming SGML documents"! So here we have a rough
> > definition of conformance, and a working example since XML conforms to SGML.
> >
> > Similarly, a complete XMPP session (with start and end stream tags) is a
> > conforming XML document. Just because the session does not include
> > comments, processing instructions, DTD subsets, entity references other
> > than those predefined in the XML spec, other other restricted features
> > does not mean that the session is not an XML document.
> >
>
>The difference is, which I consider the major confusing part for
>developers, that the XML recommendation doesn't always use the term
>'SGML' when defining something. The XMPP spec very often uses 'XML' to
>describe things.
>
> > So we could say this in rfc3920bis:
> >
> > ***
> >
> > The Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) defines a class of
> > data objects called XML streams as well as the behavior of computer
> > programs that process XML streams. XMPP is an application profile or
> > restricted form of the Extensible Markup Language (XML). A complete XML
> > stream (including start and end stream tags) is a conforming XML document.
> >
> > ***
>
>Sounds nice.
>
> > > (Please take this mail as serious as you like, I don't know how serious I mean it.)
> >
> > Don't worry, I take all of your emails that way. :P
>
>Just take care that some mails have the intend to point something
>out, which I would like to have fixed or I really feel could
>make the life of other developers easier. I of course can only offer an
>opinion w.r.t. technical aspects of some things.
>
>That some things can't be fixed because of backward compatibility is
>unfortunate. But other things (still) can, just make sure to take at
>least those serious "enough" :-)
>
>
>R
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Standards mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>
>
>End of Standards Digest, Vol 44, Issue 84
>*****************************************
Agora o Windows Live Spaces tem rede de amigos! Clique aqui e descubra a novidade
