[standards-jig] JIDs (JEP-0029)
stpeter at jabber.org
Wed May 1 18:30:15 CDT 2002
On Wed, 1 May 2002, Craig wrote:
> Agreed. I'll use your nomenclature.
It's a beautiful thing. :)
> >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.
> See the first line of the grammar:
> <JID> ::= [<user>"@"]<host>["/"<resource>]
> The brackets around user@ and /resource mean that they are optional.
Indeed. When the JEP Editor gets his hands on the document again he'll
probably put that into words in the first paragraph of section 2 so that
mere mortals can understand it as well.
> >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.
> Actually, I specified allowed characters in the grammar:
> <conforming-char> ::= #x21 | [#x23-#x26] | [#x28-#x2B] |
> [#x2D-#x39] | [#x3B-#x3F] |
> [#x41-#x7E] | [#x80-#xD7FF] |
> [#xE000-#xFFFD] | [#x10000-#x10FFFF]
> The disallowed characters were only spelled out for those who don't know
> what characters I excluded in this terminal. I can wipe out the
> offending list from section 2.3 since it adds no information not already
> specified in the grammar.
Well, I think the natural-language explanation is good, I just wanted to
be consistent. Perhaps a bullet list such as that in the IETF draft would
work for those mere mortals.
> >4. I'm not a character encoding guru -- is there a preferred style of
> >identifying Unicode characters (e.g., U+0020 vs. #x20)?
> Well, I went with the same notation used in the XML spec
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml). Seemed good enough for me ;-)
For the next version of the Internet-Draft I think I'll follow the XML
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." --Emerson
More information about the Standards-JIG