Re: PIDF for buddylists

"Carr, Wayne" wrote:
> 
> The proposal looks like adding the ability to add extensions as the direct
> child of the presence element.  That's already in
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-05.txt  The **
> part of the suggested schema section below are in the XML schema now.

Oops! I was looking at an old version. Dumb, because I had the newer one too and just looked at the wrong one. So I guess no prep-work is required to permit later migration
to the kinds of changes I am speculating about.

> Also for people not familiar with XML schema --  in another Internet Draft
> someone can define a new XML format in a new namespace that includes the
> PIDF format presence element (lists of them if they want).  They don't need
> to redefine PIDF in their draft, they just include it by including an
> element with the pidf namespace - so can have lists of presence elements.

Yes, or course. But that would require adopting a new sip content-type to go forward.

> 
> I think the PIDF format is flexible enough that it can handle the types of
> things being discussed without changes to PIDF itself.

Since the change I was looking for has already been made, I must agree.

	Paul



  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]