[Standards-JIG] RE: PubSub URI

Justin Karneges justin-keyword-jabber.093179 at affinix.com
Tue Sep 28 04:28:09 UTC 2004


Just to throw something out here:  notice how it is 'mailto', and not 'smtp' ?

Maybe our URIs should have more of a command focus instead of a protocol 
focus, especially since XMPP can technically be used for anything.  After 
all, once XMPP replaces email, won't we still use 'mailto' ?

-Justin

On Monday 27 September 2004 09:11 pm, Nolan Eakins wrote:
> Bob Wyman wrote:
> > Nolan Eakins wrote:
> >>How would you address a PubSub node or collection with an URI?
> >
> > One of the things I think we lost when PubSub subscriptions were
> > declared not to be nodes is the ability to refer to a subscription via a
> > JID or URI. This will, I think, end up causing us some serious usability
> > problems in the future.
>
> I guess you can have a PubSub node as a JID. When I made the post I was
> thinking that an extension to XMPP's URI scheme would be needed. Something
> along the lines of "user at host/resource#node". '#' or '?' could be used to
> delimit a couple of additional fields. '#' would make more sense for nodes
> ala HTTP's use of it for anchors, while '?' would probably be better for
> command type information to specify a stanza type and default information
> ala 'mailto:' URIs.
>
> This could put the 1024 byte limit on the URIs in danger, but do we need to
> limit the size?
>
> - Nolan



More information about the Standards mailing list