The only real way I see them being used is that the URI ones are self-describing, i.e. they refer to the XEP itself, which is nice, because some newbie developer can pick up up an XML document and instantly find the documentation. However, the *:*:*:*... namespaces describe functionality straight away, e.g. jabber:client and jabber:server, what could be more descriptive than that?
And changing the namespaces will break a lot of existing code. Badly written code (like magic strings) which is unfortunately quite abundant will require changes in more that one class/module/whatever.
So no, sorry, doesn't look like we can ditch the *:*:*:*... namespaces. Too much depends on it.
Tomasz Sterna wrote:
Dnia 20-08-2007, Pn o godzinie 10:14 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre napisał(a):Could you please explain what's so ugly in "storage:*"?The same thing that was so ugly about jabber:* -- it's not a real URI or URN.But at all... It's just a plain, string identifier. Whether it is "real" or not, it does its job of identifying a namespace.At the least, going forward we should not use such monstrosities and instead use real URNs.Sure. Using "real" URNs protects us from nameclashes. But besides that, I do not see any advantages with using "real" URNs.
-- jonathan chayce dickinson ruby/c# developer cell: +27741863698 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <some profound piece of wisdom>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
