Re: [Standards] XEP-0072 si-pub namespace inconsistency
* Peter Saint-Andre [2022-03-10 16:06]: > IIRC, sipub is correct and si-pub is incorrect. Thanks for chiming in, Peter! > What does the schema say? That was a great question. I didn't find a schema in '72, but it's actually present at http://www.xmpp.org/schemas/sipub.xsd (linked from '137) and confirms 'sipub'. A public code search also clearly indicates 'sipub' is the winner: 350 non-XML/HTML hits for 'sipub': https://github.com/search?q=%22http%3A%2F%2Fjabber.org%2Fprotocol%2Fsipub%22&type=Code 3 non-XML/HTML hits for 'si-pub': https://github.com/search?q=%22http%3A%2F%2Fjabber.org%2Fprotocol%2Fsi-pub%22&type=Code So if nobody screams out loudly, I'm going to replace all si-pub examples into sipub in all the XEPs that did it wrong. Georg signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] XEP-0072 si-pub namespace inconsistency
On 3/10/22 2:46 AM, Georg Lukas wrote: Hi, I've been looking into our legacy namespaces recently (the ones starting with `http://jabber.org/`), with a goal to implement HTTP Redirects to the respective XEPs (first map at https://op-co.de/tmp/namespacemap.txt) I identified a bunch of inconsistencies in examples, for some of which I've already opened PRs. Thanks for doing this. One of the things that I'm not sure about is XEP-0072, where two different SI-Pub namespaces are used: Within a message element, only mentioned in the example: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0072.html#example-8 And within an IQ element, mentioned in normative text and in an example: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0072.html#example-9 I assume that having two different namespaces was not a deliberate design decision, IIRC, sipub is correct and si-pub is incorrect. What does the schema say? but my question is: Do these examples reflect the actual in-the-wild use? Is SOAP over XMPP even used in the wild anymore? Weren't we talking about deprecating or obsoleting XEP-0072? Can we harmonize them / fix the examples? At least in https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0137.html#example-1 and https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0332.html#example-13 it looks like is actually a thing. More specs to be deprecated? ;-) Peter ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
[Standards] XEP-0072 si-pub namespace inconsistency
Hi, I've been looking into our legacy namespaces recently (the ones starting with `http://jabber.org/`), with a goal to implement HTTP Redirects to the respective XEPs (first map at https://op-co.de/tmp/namespacemap.txt) I identified a bunch of inconsistencies in examples, for some of which I've already opened PRs. One of the things that I'm not sure about is XEP-0072, where two different SI-Pub namespaces are used: Within a message element, only mentioned in the example: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0072.html#example-8 And within an IQ element, mentioned in normative text and in an example: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0072.html#example-9 I assume that having two different namespaces was not a deliberate design decision, but my question is: Do these examples reflect the actual in-the-wild use? Can we harmonize them / fix the examples? At least in https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0137.html#example-1 and https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0332.html#example-13 it looks like is actually a thing. Kind regards, Georg signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___