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* easy to remember. > > The only real way I see them being used is that the URI ones are > self-describing, i.e. they refer to the XEP itself, which is nice, > because some newbie developer can pick up up an XML document and > instantly find the documentation. However, the *:*:*:*... namespaces > describe functionality straight away, e.g. jabber:client and > jabber:server, what could be more descriptive than that? > > And changing the namespaces will break a lot of existing code. Badly > written code (like magic strings) which is unfortunately quite abundant > will require changes in more that one class/module/whatever. > > So no, sorry, doesn't look like we can ditch the *:*:*:*... namespaces. > Too much depends on it.
This is a non-issue -- I already posted to the list about retracting the suggestion. Peter
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
