XSF Discussion - 2016-07-11

e

Heh, that’s a nice suggestion, I used to use my own unregistered urn: scheme which was bad, then switched to http:, but xmpp: is even better for my usecase.

What does urn: stand for?

ralphm: Thanks. Why is it considered an anti-pattern when it's not a URN?

I usually dislike prefixing the namespace with http(s) because it's not really related to http(s). 'example.org/ns/foo' seems like a good option. Or mabye 'xmpp:example.org/ns/foo' although that URI doesn't seem to make any sense. So I'd go with "<registered-domainname>/path". Any objections?

Flow: so you have choices here: 1) use a valid URN (if it is an accepted XEP you can use the prefix urn:xmpp:), 2) use an HTTP URI, 3) maybe use an XMPP URI. I never considered option 3 before today.

Flow: and in 2000, the W3C decided to deprecate relative URIs for namespaces

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4501

Is what I do, mrkiko. I hope we don't get kicked! x)

Was going to print RFC 6120 because I'm tired of trying to read it on a screen (I really can't think straight when I'm looking at a computer screen) and the price difference between a 3 ring binder and a hardcover bound book is only like $10 USD… might spring for the hard cover just to be ridiculous. I wonder if anyone would use this if the IETF offered it as a service.

Soon XMPP Over Paper

sorry, exiting