[standards-jig] JIDs (JEP-0029)

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Wed May 1 15:29:30 CDT 2002


A few nits:

1. I would prefer to see consistency between this JEP and the relevant
subsection of the IETF draft regarding terminology. For example, there is
a reason I started to use the term "node" as opposed to "user" in the IETF
draft, since the portion of the JID before the at sign is not always a
user, but rather may be something like a conference room (in groupchat) or
a publisher (in some pub/sub-style applications). Such entities are not
users. 

BTW, I am open to changing the terminology in the IETF draft, e.g. if the
term "domain" is less clear than "host". It's simply that I would prefer
consistency. (Also note that in the IETF draft I referred to "domain
identifier", "node identifier", and "resource identifier" to abstract
these aspects of the JID from physical implementations). The relevant
URL with which to harmonize is:

http://www.jabber.org/ietf/draft-miller-jabber-00.html#entity

2. I would prefer that this JEP make it clear that only the domain
identifier is necessary to have a valid JID. The node identifier and
resource identifier are optional.

3. Characters disallowed in usernames (node identifiers, whatever :) are
specified as Unicode character numbers in the IETF draft (e.g., U+003E)
but by ostensive example in the JEP (e.g., >). I would prefer that we not
resort to ostensive definition.

4. I'm not a character encoding guru -- is there a preferred style of
identifying Unicode characters (e.g., U+0020 vs. #x20)?

Thanks.

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
email+jabber: stpeter at jabber.org
weblog: http://www.saint-andre.com/blog/




More information about the Standards-JIG mailing list