Hi Thijs, 2016-01-20 19:36 GMT+01:00 Thijs Alkemade <[email protected]>:
> I sent a proposal for that back in June [1], but that didn't receive a lot > of > responses, just Kev noting that namespaced attributes aren't very common in > XMPP [2]. > > There are alternatives to using a namespaced attribute, but I fear those > won't > be backwards compatible. Unless there are implementations out there that > have > major problems working with namespaced attributes, I don't think we should > avoid them just for being rare. > > Regards, > Thijs > > > [1] = http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2015-June/029847.html > [2] = http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2015-October/030514.html > yeah too bad that this didn't get any attention. I kinda missed that myself. That's probably not an easy topic to grasp if you never thought about it before. Never the less this problem needs a solution and I actually belief it's careless to just update XEPs like this. I had a quick off-list discussion about this and for most scenarios might have individual solutions available. In this MAM case this could have been solved by a namespace bump and the requirement for servers to sanitize those elements. In case of a server injecting stanza-ids it could probably be solved by having the server announce the stanza-id namespace in its disco and thus indicating that it is sanitizing all stanza-ids. Like you mentioned using an un-namespaced from or by attribute can lead to some weird consequences. What ever we agree on we should come up with a solution rather sooner than later. Because having the server inject information like the original sender in this case or stanza-ids in another is certainly something desirable. But without the added security practically worthless. cheers Daniel
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
