On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:54:19 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Cridland wrote: > > > the advantage here is that if the protocol is > > stable earlier than its move to Draft - and actually, this is > > normally the case, a lot of the pre-draft stuff is specification > > wrangling rather than proptocol redesign - people can go ahead and > > implement it, and it'll continue to work. > > > > Otherwise, as we get closer to Draft, we're actually putting people > > off implementation at the very moment we want to encourage it. > > I think that's the key bit. > > But how much are developers scared off by the need to support both > urn:xmpp:tmp:foo and urn:xmpp:foo? It seems to me that's just a > simple switch statement in your code. > > Also, it's not clear how we'd handle sub-namespaces: > > urn:xmpp:foo:4:sub This one looks better and more logical to me. Pavel > > or > > urn:xmpp:foo:sub:4 > > ? > > Peter > -- Pavel Šimerda Freelancer v oblasti počítačových sítí, komunikace a bezpečnosti Web: http://www.pavlix.net/ Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net OpenID: pavlix.net
