We seem to be talking past each other. The strange part is that this
extension is specific to LoST usage and makes no sense elsewhere.
Obviously, there is no syntactic problem.
You still haven't answered what purpose the identifier serves, given
that all other 4119 applications seem to survive just fine without it.
On Apr 25, 2007, at 9:42 AM, Andrew Newton wrote:
On Apr 24, 2007, at 10:32 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
That seems like a lot of extra burden on the system, when we
could just add some meta-data to the service boundary and allow
LoST servers to do exact matches.
This would not be the service boundary, but it would have to be
the <location-info> element, so it would have to be a PIDF-LO
extension, which seems rather strange.
PIDF-LO allows multiple elements from other namespaces inside the
<location-info>. That is not strange, that is very common in XML.
The meta-data is not an extension to PIDF-LO itself. That is a
Ecrit mailing list