Based on further feedback from Ralph Meijer, I suggest that we might
want to add another paragraph to clarify existing usage:
###
For reasons that are lost in the mists of time, some XMPP extension
protocols produced by the XSF, such as Multi-User Chat [9] and
Publish-Subscribe [10], prefix their field names with strings like
muc# and pubsub#. There is no good reason to apply that convention
to new XSF extensions. Indeed, there is even no good reason to apply
that convention to the names of new fields defined by the XSF for those
existing XSF extensions; however, the practice is harmless for those
existing extensions (since a string such as
{http://jabber.org/protocol/pubsub#subscribe_authorization}pubsub#subscriber_jid;
can be considered equivalent to a string such as
pubsub#subscriber_jid), and this document does not actively recommend
deprecating the convention.
###
On 5/9/12 9:38 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
In its meeting just now, the XMPP Council discussed [1] some changes to
XEP-0068 (Field Standardization for Data Forms) to align this spec with
a forthcoming recommendation at the IETF [2] to deprecate the x-
prefix for protocol parameters.
As a result of that discussion, I'm proposing some adjusted wording in
Section 3.4, as follows:
###
3.4 Field Names
For FORM_TYPEs that are registered with the XMPP Registrar, the
following rules apply:
1. If the field is defined by the XSF (i.e., in a XEP), the field name
SHALL be determined in accordance with the usual XSF consensus process
and the field MUST be registered with the XMPP Registrar.
2. If the field is defined outside the XSF, the field name SHALL follow
the extension rules described below and the field MAY be registered with
the XMPP Registrar.
For FORM_TYPEs that are not registered with the XMPP Registrar, the
field name SHALL follow the extension fules described below and the
field typically will not be registered with the XMPP Registrar.
The namespace of a field is assumed to be inherited from the
FORM_TYPE. When an organization or project defines a field that is used
in the context of a FORM_TYPE it does not manage (e.g., a non-XSF field
contained in a form whose FORM_TYPE is managed by the XSF, or a
third-party field contained in a form whose FORM_TYPE is managed by some
other organization), the name of the field MUST be namespaced with a URI
controlled by the extending organization or project, where the
namespacing mechanism MUST be Clark Notation [8], e.g., a field name of
{http://example.com/pubsub}time_restrictions;.
Note: Older versions of this specification mandated that unregistered
field names had to begin with the prefix x-. In accordance with
Deprecating X- [9], that mandate has been removed. However, existing
x- field names are acceptable and can be registered with the XMPP
Registrar as described above.
###
Feedback is welcome before the Council approves version 1.2rc3 of
XEP-0068 as its next meeting (two weeks from now).
Thanks!
Peter
[1] http://logs.xmpp.org/council/120509/#15:05:08
[2] http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-xdash/
[8] http://www.jclark.com/xml/xmlns.htm
