Hi list, On Mittwoch, 23. Juni 2021 20:05:20 CEST Matthew Wild wrote: > On Wed, 23 Jun 2021, 17:21 Guus der Kinderen, <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > Should we consider introducing a change to the namespace as used in the > > portable data, to more explicitly handle the changes in format? I'm aware > > that you mainly introduced new elements, and the one attribute that you > > dropped ('password') is defined as a 'should' - but still: the output is > > significantly different. > > I'm not sure I agree that it's *significantly* different. As you say, it's > mostly adding new stuff. So let's see... > > If we use existing namespace for old elements: > > [… snip …] > > My thoughts: the goal of XEP-0227 is about maximizing interoperability > between servers. Bumping the namespace on elements that have not changed > their format reduces interoperability.
I agree; as long as the new elements are in a new namespace (and they are), I think we’re good. > > Given the nature of the protocol, it is not unthinkable that data exported > > by an implementation following the older XEP version gets imported by one > > of a newer version, and vice versa - perhaps with plenty of time between > > import and export (eg: backup restores). Important argument which supports Matthews approach IMO. kind regards, Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
