[jdev] Membership Application period Q2 2015

I have created the membership application page for Q2 2015 at: http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Membership_Applications_Q2_2015 The following XSF members have to reapply: * Yusuke Doi * Wayne Franklin * Artur Hefczyc * Wojciech Kapcia * Ben Langfeld * Arc Riley * Kevin Smith * Paul Witty * Andrzej Wójcik

Re: [jdev] Websockets RFC: stream: prefix required or not?

Should not, I agree. But evidently, it kinda does. ☺ I do think people were confused by the prefixed example not being equivalent to unprefixed one. e.g. show both on feature or error as Michael suggested. Elsewise, the unfortunately growing number of people who are not very familiar with XML

Re: [jdev] Websockets RFC: stream: prefix required or not?

I agree that the example might be confusing. But the text reads ok for me. Actually the whole section boils down to: "Just make sure to produce valid XML".   For me this is self-evident and actually shouldn't require further detailed explanation and examples.   Gesendet: Dienstag, 03. Februar

Re: [jdev] Websockets RFC: stream: prefix required or not?

Because the example is confusing (IMHO) : Note that for stream features and errors, there is no parent context element providing the "stream" namespace prefix as in [RFC6120], and thus the stream prefix MUST be declared or use an unprefi

Re: [jdev] Websockets RFC: stream: prefix required or not?

On 03.02.2015 12:53, Michael Weibel wrote: > It looks as if you'd need to use the "stream:" prefix for "features" but > you shouldn't/mustn't use it for "error". What makes you think that you need to use a prefix (or String 'stream' as prefix) when using features? - Florian __

Re: [jdev] Websockets RFC: stream: prefix required or not?

Thanks for all the replies. I agree that this should probably be clarified as the current explanation is not as clear as it should be. It looks as if you'd need to use the "stream:" prefix for "features" but you shouldn't/mustn't use it for "error". More examples or writing it in a better way would

Re: [jdev] Websockets RFC: stream: prefix required or not?

> I called this out in 7395 because both stream features and errors > traditionally use the 'stream' prefix while relying on the opening > tag to define to define the prefix. But for WebSocket there is no parent > tag providing those declarations, and it seemed like an easy item for > implementor