Hi,
On Sep 30, 2008, at 1:04 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Tue Sep 30 00:27:49 2008, Justin Karneges wrote:
> I'm inclined to say, therefore, that either we redeclare the
> namespace on each XEP-0198 element, or else we just say that
XEP-0198
> extends the jabber:server and jabber:client namespaces - the latter
> is uglier in the specification, but much cleaner on the wire.
FWIW, dialback also uses a stream-level prefix, which would violate
the
existing rule you speak of.
No, because it's not an extension namespace, as per the definition.
XEP-0198 doesn't fall foul of this rule as-is, either, the problem
is that a naïve server (ie, one that's never heard of XEP-0198)
cannot know whether or not the extension namespace rule has been
violated, and from there, it cannot know if it should use a slower
code path, or else it might choose to risk generating bad namespace
prefixes.
I might be missing something but such naive server, one that never
heard of XEP-0198, will not announce support for it, right? So what's
the problem?
I say that we should push the 0198 namespace to the <stream:stream>,
it seems wasteful not to do it.
I've read the current draft and I like it, it seems very complete. I
think the text and examples of section 6, Stream Resumption, are a bit
strange. The examples after each paragraph don't match my expectations
based on the text, but I'll re-read the section more carefully to make
suggestions.
best regards,
--
Pedro Melo
Blog: http://www.simplicidade.org/notes/
XMPP ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use XMPP!
