[Standards-JIG] RE: PubSub URI
hildjj at gmail.com
Thu Sep 30 13:52:55 UTC 2004
pres: (RFC 3859)
im: (RFC 3860)
These can still be used for the generic version. xmpp: is meant as a
protocol-specific approach, that can be extended with XMPP-ish
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 21:28:09 -0700, Justin Karneges
<justin-keyword-jabber.093179 at affinix.com> wrote:
> 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' ?
> 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
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
More information about the Standards