[standards-jig] JIDs

Julian Missig julian at jabber.org
Mon Feb 4 22:32:57 UTC 2002

On Mon, 2002-02-04 at 17:03, Iain Shigeoka wrote:
> On 2/4/02 1:21 PM, "Julian Missig" <julian at jabber.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2002-02-04 at 14:45, Iain Shigeoka wrote:
> >> So you are correct in both the standard and the fact that many things are
> >> non-compliant.  Which raises an interesting standards-jig question: should
> >> we try and crack down on these violations, change the standards to fit the
> >> implementations, or continue with the status quo?
> > 
> > My vote is to first get clients and transports to support iq:gateway,
> > then to crack down on violations...
> One major question is how to crack down on violators...  :)  The
> JabberPowered logo requirements may be a good stick/carrot for that.
> > Maybe sometime this week I'll write up a JEP for iq:gateway to encourage
> > people to support it. Funny that the only JEPs I seem to be in charge of
> > are ones I don't support yet :)
> He he he.
> > The major question is how we get all of these rosters switched from % --
> > maybe the transports could accept both % and whatever new character(s)
> > they decide on? Transport authors? comments?
> It is a bit contradictory.  You want to use a character _not_ found in
> usernames, but that is legal in a the JID username field so you can
> represent all possible usernames!  Perhaps people should be encouraged to
> use a different gateway pattern like:
> gateway.hostname at gateway.jabber.server.hostname/gateway.username
> Or something similar?  If we are going to insist people stop using the
> current (non-compliant) pattern we should offer a suggested replacement.

No, not "we should" -- "we must"

It makes no sense to go on and on whining that something is not
compliant when we don't have a decent solution. And sorry, I don't like
your proposed solution :)

/me waits for transport authors to make comments

email: julian at jabber.org
jabber:julian at jabber.org

More information about the Standards mailing list