RE: PIDF: 2 issues with examples

On 20 April 2002 17:14, Carr, Wayne wrote:
> I noticed 2 problems in the examples that may be leftovers from recent

> changes the group has made.
> 
> 1. Some examples have extension elements as direct children of the top

> level "presence" element.  I think it would be good to allow that, but

> it doesn't say it is allowed in the text.  (Did it used to be allowed 
> in the presentity element and was it to be moved to the presence 
> element?)

Wayne, thanks for your work on this. It's useful to get a fresh look
through the document.

My reading of RFC 2778 suggests that we should not allow this.
Specifically, it says that PRESENCE INFORMATION consists of one of more
PRESENCE TUPLES, and that the PRESENCE TUPLE is where OTHER PRESENCE
MARKUP is allowed.

> 2. There are two namespaces used for the impp presence namespace in 
> the
> examples: "urn:ietf:params:cpim-presence:" and in one example
"urn:iana:impp:presence:"  Is the iana one unintentional or is the
namespace name changing?

We've been a bit vague about the URN in the past. As per Graham's IANA
considerations section, it should now be
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:cpim-pidf.

Best regards,

Adrian.




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