Hello On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 11:19:59AM -0700, Justin Karneges wrote: > > That said, all server implementations need to do this namespace juggling > > anyway, so I don't see how it is an extra burden to do this for another > > namespace, too. > > What doesn't sit well with me is this idea of the standard elements having to > live under any random namespace. The namespace is what gives them meaning. > If we only ever have exactly two (or potentially with a component namespace, > exactly three) possible namespaces for the elements, maybe that is fine. > What is not fine is having to worry that someday down the line we may invent > yet another namespace that the standard elements must be able to operate > under. Is <body> omnipresent, and existing potentially in all namespaces? :)
Well, I take <body/> does what it does if it is in the same namespace with stanzas, and it does not much matter which kind of stanza it is (client, server, whatever). Technically, it is the namespace that gives the meaning, but - if you look at the xml document/stream - it is the body that inherited the namespace and does not have the xmlns= attribute (do I sound like XML heretic to you?). -- Security warning: Do not expose this email to direct sunlight. It may lead to undefined behaviour, including possible data or life loses. Michal 'vorner' Vaner
pgpf3tKIm9RN6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
