Re: [Standards] XEP-0072 si-pub namespace inconsistency

[Georg Lukas]

* 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

[Peter Saint-Andre]

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
___