-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 9/23/09 10:01 AM, Jehan Pagès wrote:
> Hi,
>
> yesterday I was discussing with Peter about how namespace requirements
> were presented in RFC 3920bis, and we both agreed that it is wrong.
I think that some points need to be clarified, but I do not agree with
all of your conclusions.
> 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) +
I see no reason to relax this restriction. Among other things, it would
break most XMPP implementations, which seems like a bad idea.
> you MUST have a prefix declared, for the stream related first level
> elements,
As Dave pointed out, that falls out from having a default namespace.
> and this prefix MUST be "stream".
This is SHOULD in the spec. However, I think we can relax it to say only
that an implementation MAY accept only "stream:" as the prefix. You can
draw your own conclusions about whether you ought to set the prefix to
"stream:" in your implementation (e.g., to avoid interoperability problems).
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkrD4iIACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzXugCfR+4sh2cCyWaRN6CP8oRZM1w+
pkkAn3imadOoJ+uL7FkLtAAzsf1lGwcS
=0w1N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.