This was a redirect from the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list... Dave Cridland wrote: > On Mon Sep 29 18:47:56 2008, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> Dave Cridland wrote: >> > XMPP does already have a technology in the >> > Experimental stage, XEP-0198, which is not yet deployed anywhere (but >> > if PSA updates the namespace to something stable, I might implement >> > it). >> >> I'll get right on that, boss! I've been hoping that my esteemed >> co-authors (and any interested others) would send me feedback on it, >> since it's in a pretty raw state. I'll read it over here soon, too. > > Mea Culpa. > > I read it, it looks good, and I was going to implement it as an amusing > project until I realised I couldn't stick it in our release with a :tmp: > namespace, hence all that stuff... > > I may find stuff when I get around to implementing it, of course, but at > a glance, it looks generally good. My only real worry was the namespace > declaration at the top-level, because in our implementation, that will > trigger a slower processing of XML in case that's used inside stanzas - > teaching our implementation what it means, even if we don't implement > it, will cure it, but I wonder if we can avoid that somehow.
I don't know if the prefixing buys us all that much. Perhaps there was some mistaken notion that we'd save a ton of bytes. But I don't see a deep difference between the following: <a xmlns='urn:xmpp:sm:0' b='1'/> <sm:a b='1'/> And the added complexity of the prefixing makes the latter more painful, for many reasons. I'd just as soon remove it entirely. /psa -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
