Re: [xmpp] Use of namespace in RFC 3920

[Jack Moffitt <jack at collecta.com>]

> yesterday I was discussing with Peter about how namespace requirements
> were presented in RFC 3920bis, and we both agreed that it is wrong.
> The RFC is clearly trying to make an excuse for badly programmed XML
> parsers, not able to expand prefixes into namespaces (or keep track of
> declared prefix in parent elements). So you MUST absolutely have a
> default namespace in the root <stream>, and this one MUST be the one
> for the stanza ("jabber:client" or "jabber:server", most typically) +
> you MUST have a prefix declared, for the stream related first level
> elements, and this prefix MUST be "stream".
> So for instance, the current RFC asks me to reject and consider this
> stream start as an error, though it is perfectly valid XML and
> conforming to XMPP:

I am +1 on fixing this stuff.

This might also be a good time to bring up the XML-NAMES
well-formedness issues and address those as well.  I'd have to go back
and look at what the consensus (if any) was for that.  But I seem to
recall a proposal that suggested we disallow other prefixes in the
top-level stream element and not throw XML parse errors on namespace
well-formedness issues.

jack.