2009/7/15 Remko Tronçon <[email protected]>: >> I'm sure there were good reasons for both these suggestions - I can >> understand why if we upgrade the usage we can upgrade the namespace, >> but what is the motivation for suggesting two different namespaces for >> the same job? > It will take some time until server software is upgraded to 3921bis, > and until then, they may not route jabber:iq:roster packages to > components (because of the special treatment of jabber:iqRoster in > 3921). A new protocol will not have this problem.
Well, yes - but just using a new namespace everywhere would work ok too. Clients will have to jabber:iq:roster if their server only understands that regardless, but we can use the new namespace where it's supported everywhere. Yes, my motivation for this is largely that of the other thread - I'd like to upgrade roster handling while we're at it. /K
