[Standards-JIG] XMPP URIs was: Two questions regardingJEP-0124HTTP Binding
trejkaz at trypticon.org
Sat Dec 3 08:51:29 UTC 2005
On Saturday 03 December 2005 04:09, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> I think (3) is a non-starter. I don't like the confusing aspect of (2)
> and personally I doubt that this spec will ever be used for non-XMPP
> connections, so I prefer (1). Have I missed any pros and cons?
Is there a problem with doing this the "XML way" and introducing an optional
attribute which holds the port number?
Email: trejkaz at trypticon.org
Jabber ID: trejkaz at trypticon.org
Web site: http://trypticon.org/
GPG Fingerprint: 9EEB 97D7 8F7B 7977 F39F A62C B8C7 BC8B 037E EA73
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Standards