On 28.03.2018 13:37, Kevin Smith wrote: >> On 14 Mar 2018, at 17:29, Jonas Wielicki (XSF Editor) <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> 3. Is the text of XEP-0122 clear and unambiguous? Are more examples >> needed? Is the conformance language (MAY/SHOULD/MUST) appropriate? >> Have developers found the text confusing at all? Please describe any >> suggestions you have for improving the text. > > I think the SHOULD on using namespace prefixes is probably ill-advised (can > the people who say they’ve implemented 122 confirm that they do this?). If you mean
""" implementations sending the form using prefixes SHOULD use the namespace prefix "xdv", and SHOULD declare the namespace prefix mapping in the ancestor <x xmlns='jabber:x:data'/> element """ then no, Smack does not do this. I don't think the normative 'SHOULD' is necessary here. Note that Smack will handle namespace prefixes just fine when receiving forms. I just double checked and wrote a short unit test for it (and discovered https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/617 doing so). I find namespace prefixes useful and don't believe that the XMPP world would stop turning if they where more widely used. They are handy in certain situations like extending an already specified element by an additional attribute. - Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
