Lauri Kaila wrote:
> - Application name registration was removed from XEP-0168. I think > there should be some kind of standard convention for app names.XML namespaces are not good enough? > Otherwise clients may use any names with Entity Capabilites (ext > attribute). Therefore a same name could mean something different for > each active resource of my roster, which would require an IQ for each. > Why not define a standard name for each XEP like "xep-0167", or > shorter "0167" for previously used "jingle-audio"? Maybe a prefix for > private extensions? I *think* we don't need the appnames (just one more mapping for clients to remember) and can use XML namespaces instead. If not, we can always add the appnames back in. I was just trying to simplify things.You are right, from one viewpoint ;) Appnames are redundant, and wouldincrease the registrar's workload.
The XMPP Registrar doesn't have much to do. ;-)
IMHO, I think appnames would be a nice implementation shortcut. Otherwise a client must do bookkeeping for client software/extname/namespace mapping, and ask the namespace when an unknown ext comes in. A fixed appname/namespace mapping would be easier to code.
OK. I'm all in favor of making life easier for coders. What do others think? Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre XMPP Standards Foundation http://www.xmpp.org/xsf/people/stpeter.shtml
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
