[Standards-JIG] Still not sure ...

David Waite dwaite at gmail.com
Fri Sep 10 13:08:10 UTC 2004


Probably as an optimization for code (you can use a fixed buffer of
maximum size 3KiB for holding a JID), and to allow JIDs to be stored
in an indexable database field rather than as a CLOB/BLOB.

-David Waite

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:04:08 -0400, Jean-Louis Seguineau /EXC/TEC
<jean-louis.seguineau at antepo.com> wrote:
> I may sound weird, but what was the reson for limiting the length of the
> portions in a JID in the first place ?
> 
> Rgds
> Jean-Louis
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Matthias Wimmer [mailto:m at tthias.net]
> > Sent: Thu 9/9/2004 1:08 AM
> > To: standards-jig at jabber.org
> > Cc:
> > Subject: [Standards-JIG] Still not sure ...
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi list!
> >
> >
> > I am still not sure if it has been a good idea, that xmpp core 3.1
> > limits the length of the portions in a JID to 1023 B in UTF-8 encoding.
> > This might seem to be a good choice for programs using 8 bit character
> > types ... but it makes it hard to check if a JID is valid if you use
> > wide character types like wchar_t in modern C/C++ or the standard
> character
> > type of Java.
> > For most modern languages it seems to be easier to check the number of
> > characters in a string than the number of bytes in a corresponding UTF-8
> > byte sequence.
> >
> >
> > Tot kijk
> >     Matthias
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> https://jabberstudio.org/mailman/listinfo/standards-jig
>



More information about the Standards mailing list