Curtis King wrote: > > On 21-Oct-08, at 6:47 AM, Peter Saint-Andre 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. :) > > It's not only ugly, but the root of the problem. No? > > If we are going to make a change to the spec which will break most if > not all server implementations. Why not do the correct fix, by changing > the text to "MUST not use prefixes as described in XML-NAMES". We are > using XML to frame and encode an over the wire protocol not store a 500 > page document. Let's be smart and not use the parts which will cause us > pain like prefixes.
What about things like SOAP over XMPP? There are lots of prefixes in that spec: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0072.html However that's just about the only such spec I know of. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
