On Tue Sep 9 17:54:34 2008, Kevin Smith wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Dirk Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you wrote about XEP-0198 and that
> is more complicated. IMHO it is a MUST HAVE extension and I will
> implement it as soon as I can, but I have no server to test it
> with. And the same is true for server developer: they have no
> client.
At least in the 198 case, server implementations can test against
themselves, while clients require the server, so it's possible to
bootstrap things.
And I was tempted to do just that, because I'm quite keen on 198 for
various reasons.
Only I don't really want to implement anything that will definitely
become incompatible, and the message using a :tmp: namespace is that
not only will anything I write at least need a namespace change, but
it'll also be changed on the assumption that nobody's implementing,
too.
In other words, if, say, someone decides that 198's <r/> and <a/>
elements are entirely semantically equivalent [they aren't, but could
be made so easily] and decides to remove the one I happen to be
sending, the namespace won't change and I'll end up with an
incompatible implementation.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
