Re: [JDEV] Protocol bits and discussion

[Jeremie <jer@jeremie.com>]

> Sort of but it still seems pretty arbitry. 

Yes, in reality, it is not a big deal either way.  I don't really have my
head around RDF yet, but it seems to allow either syntax to accomplish the
same thing.

At this point I'm not too worried about the actual syntax of the protocol,
it's XML, I know it works, and it can be extended fairly easily.  

> [...]
>
> Mapping JABBER V 1.0 => JABBER V 2.0 where the actual
> tags are different form V 1.0 to V 2.0. Maybe one 
> wants to do this on the flie. It does not appear to be 
> too dificult but the devil may lie in the details. 

When 2.0 comes into design phase(hopefully to accomodate the ever
expanding and abused 1.0 :) it will likely use a future version of XML
along with some of the ancillary specs(RDF/Xpointer/Namespaces/etc).

It's also quite possible that by that time the IETF IMPP group will have
created a suitable spec, and the Jabber clients might be shifted over to
that instead.

Esentially though, the current protocol was designed to get the job done
easily and in a striaght forward way, and be absolutely simple, readable,
and understandable at the same time.

Jer