On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Curtis King wrote: >> >> On 20-Oct-08, at 7:37 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> >>>> >>>> Please understand that even if we use MUST instead of SHOULD with >>>> respect to namespace-awareness, the existing servers are not going to >>>> be left behind. Newer servers and server versions are still going to >>>> continue to support their legacy counterparts. The benefit of course >>>> would be that eventually we will have a sterilized network, where >>>> clients wouldn't need to worry about rolling out their own >>>> (non-conforming) namespace handling. In my opinion this is a better >>>> long term direction. >>> >>> I too think that is a worthy goal. The question is: how can we get there >>> in a reasonable fashion? >> >> Why not limit the scope of XML-NAMES ? >> >> I think xml like this should be prohibited by the xmpp spec. > > <snip/> > > Er yes, that *is* ugly. :) >
"An XMPP entity MAY choose to use prefixes as described in [XML-NAMES], on the condition that it does not generate XML which may be considered UGLY to a receiving XMPP entity." Moving forward, I'd also be in favour of specifying that RFC-compliant implementations MUST NOT send XML deemed invalid per XML-NAMES. Matthew.
