PIDF - where extensions allowed - was -> RE: PIDF: 2 issues with examples

> 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.

If some other group like the WAP Forum or 3GPP or someone else needed an
extension that applied to all information for the presentity, not just a
particular tuple, it may want a top level extension.  Extensions that apply
to all information for a presentity may be useful for things like privacy
preferences.  The alternative for doing that now is to define a tuple that
applies to all other tuples -- that may be fine -- I'm just wondering if not
having the extension could affect adoption of pidf elsewhere.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Bateman [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 10:08 AM
> To: 'Carr, Wayne'; [email protected]
> Subject: 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]