Fabio Forno wrote: > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] >> Given that I see only two (perhaps three) domains in which we need data >> versioning, I don't feel a strong need for a general solution. > > From the client perspective I don't see many differences. Just a bit > of concern about extending the roster:iq namespace which is in > rfc9321, while adding a dedicated namespace is more xmlish (but I > think it's just a question of style, since I don't think there are any > validating xmpp parsers out there, and an additional attribute would > break nothing)
I think this would be a good revision to include in rfc3921bis. See my post on the xmppwg list just now: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/xmppwg/2009-February/002507.html Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
