On Wed Apr 28 17:59:17 2010, Justin Karneges wrote:
On Wednesday 28 April 2010 04:05:32 Dave Cridland wrote:
> Besides which, it's really not that much effort on the part of the
> server to translate between namespaces, surely?
It's awkward usage of XML. I'd like to phase out such usages that
cause
people to react with "what were they thinking?". Standardizing on
jabber:client for stanzas, regardless of the stream they are
carried over, is
the right move.
The stanzas aren't actually the problem - it's the <body> etc beneath
that are eyebrow-waggle-inducing.
But it's still just how things are.
> That aside, we cannot get rid of either:
Right, we can't. At best, we could have text saying that on s2s
connections
the jabber:server namespace MUST be supported and the jabber:client
namespace
SHOULD be supported, with a note that almost all existing servers
support
just jabber:server. In reality this will mean everyone will
continue to use
jabber:server and no real change would have happened, but I don't
know what
else to suggest.
Changes that result in nothing are certainly not worth doing - it'd
be at best a political change.
The fact is, all protocols have weird warts. XMPP's is this namespace
thing (at least, one of them - there are of course others). I could
cheerfully list warts for any other well-deployed protocol, and XMPP
really isn't as bad as most.
That doesn't mean it's fixable, and doesn't mean we can ignore it.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:d...@cridland.net - xmpp:d...@dave.cridland.net
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
