> The use of a different namespace on <feature/> in a disco#info reply worries
> me. This doesn’t work with XEP-0115 (I hope, because <{urn:xmpp:mix:0}feature/
>> and <{http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#info}feature/> are fundamentally
> different elements) and is, as far as I know, specified nowhere as a valid
> use
> of disco#info. Of course, disco#info permits additional elements as
> extension,
> but I don’t know whether that was intended here.
>
> I think the cleaner way would be to use
> var='urn:xmpp:mix:0#mix_nick_register'
> like like many other XEPs do. That way other protocols relying on all
> features
> being available in {http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#info}feature elements
> won’t break.
I completely agree with your point and second this. I don’t even think the
schema for XEP-0030 allows any other elements although Result Set Management
extends disco#items as well.
From a developer’s point of view this only adds complexity and confusion to an
implementation.
It’s similarly confusing that a data form (jabber:x:data) can apparently
contain a roster (jabber:iq:roster) according to Example 32 in XEP-0133, which
is nowhere really documented.
— Christian
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
