Re: [Standards] "storage:*" namespaces

2007-08-27 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
Jonathan Chayce Dickinson wrote: > I kinda like the *:*:*:*... namespaces. jabber:* and storage:* are > really exclusive to Jabber, and even if they are not any responsible > developer should Google a new namespace first anyway: name clashes, not > an issue. And they are short, concise, and *very*

Re: [Standards] "storage:*" namespaces

2007-08-26 Thread Jonathan Chayce Dickinson
I kinda like the *:*:*:*... namespaces. jabber:* and storage:* are really exclusive to Jabber, and even if they are not any responsible developer should Google a new namespace first anyway: name clashes, not an issue. And they are short, concise, and *very* easy to remember. The only real way

Re: [Standards] "storage:*" namespaces

2007-08-26 Thread Tomasz Sterna
Dnia 20-08-2007, Pn o godzinie 10:14 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre napisał(a): > > Could you please explain what's so ugly in "storage:*"? > > The same thing that was so ugly about jabber:* -- it's not a real URI > or URN. But at all... It's just a plain, string identifier. Whether it is "real" or not

Re: [Standards] "storage:*" namespaces

2007-08-20 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
Tomasz Sterna wrote: > Dnia 17-08-2007, Pt o godzinie 09:50 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre > napisał(a): >> The "storage:*" namespaces are ugly and wrong. IMHO we should get rid >> of them, and replace them with things like >> "urn:xmpp:storage:bookmarks". > > > Could you please explain what's so ugly

Re: [Standards] "storage:*" namespaces

2007-08-19 Thread Tomasz Sterna
Dnia 17-08-2007, Pt o godzinie 09:50 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre napisał(a): > The "storage:*" namespaces are ugly and wrong. IMHO we should get rid > of them, and replace them with things like > "urn:xmpp:storage:bookmarks". Could you please explain what's so ugly in "storage:*"? -1 for breaking

Re: [Standards] "storage:*" namespaces

2007-08-17 Thread Kevin Smith
On 17 Aug 2007, at 18:23, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Kevin Smith wrote: On 17 Aug 2007, at 16:50, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: I propose that we write new specs to replace XEP-0048 and XEP-0145 I don't really know what's wrong with 48 - it's deployed, it works, and once it's updated to the new pri

Re: [Standards] "storage:*" namespaces

2007-08-17 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
Kevin Smith wrote: > On 17 Aug 2007, at 16:50, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> I propose that we write new specs to replace XEP-0048 and XEP-0145 > > I don't really know what's wrong with 48 - it's deployed, it works, and > once it's updated to the new private spec the last of the complaints > that I

Re: [Standards] "storage:*" namespaces

2007-08-17 Thread Kevin Smith
On 17 Aug 2007, at 16:50, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: I propose that we write new specs to replace XEP-0048 and XEP-0145 I don't really know what's wrong with 48 - it's deployed, it works, and once it's updated to the new private spec the last of the complaints that I know of will be gone. Do

Re: [Standards] "storage:*" namespaces

2007-08-17 Thread Stefan Strigler
Am Freitag, den 17.08.2007, 09:50 -0600 schrieb Peter Saint-Andre: > The following specs use "storage:*" namespaces: [...] > XEP-0145: Annotations > http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0145.html > state: Historical / Active [...] > I propose that we write new specs to replace XE

[Standards] "storage:*" namespaces

2007-08-17 Thread Peter Saint-Andre
The "storage:*" namespaces are ugly and wrong. IMHO we should get rid of them, and replace them with things like "urn:xmpp:storage:bookmarks". At the same time we could upgrade the relevant specs (or replacement specs) to Standards Track. The following specs use "storage:*" namespaces: XEP-0008: