Re: [Standards] [Fwd: Re: Namespace well-formedness and RFC3920bis backwards compatibility]

[Jonathan Schleifer]

Sorry, I didn't read the whole thread as I'm on vacation, but it seems to me you are talking about the routing of unbound namespaces - a problem we have with Gajim at the moment. When we receive an unbound namespace, our XML parser will just fail and there's not much we can do about that. It's nearly impossible to fix for us, it would require changes to Python and pyxmmp, if I looked correctly.

OTOH, it's easy to not route unbound namespaces. There is already a patch for ejabberd that does this. The performance loss introduced by it is so minimal that you can ignore it. There is a ticket for that bug, which I unfortunately don't have handy atm. And I can't look it up as I'm writing the message offline.

Ejabberd
authors will just say that since there's no "MUST" which ejabberd
violates then it

is perfectly XMPP compliant. So, there's no any incentive to fix the bug.

--
Jonathan

ejabberd authors said last time I spoke to them that if the new, revised RFC does not change regarding this aspect, they might apply the proposed patch.

PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part