[Standards-JIG] XMPP URIs was: Two questions regardingJEP-0124HTTP Binding
stpeter at jabber.org
Wed Dec 7 17:46:35 UTC 2005
Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote On 12/02/05 22:39,:
>> Ian Paterson wrote:
>>> Peter is proposing that the 'route' attribute should be a simple
>>> "host[:port]" value. Other possibilities *might* be "xmpp:host[:port]"
>>> (compatible with existing JEP-0124 spec) or just "xmpp:host". The latter
>>> is compatible with XMPP URI/IRIs ('route' is after all an XMPP resource
>>> identifier), but perhaps it is not ideal, see
>> OK, so we have three options:
>> 1. host[:port]
>> Pro: specifies everything we need
>> Con: not backwards-compatible with what we have now
>> doesn't support (future?) non-XMPP connections
>> 2. xmpp:host[:port]
>> Pro: backwards-compatible with what we have now
>> Con: looks like an XMPP URI but isn't (confusing?)
> Option 1 is sufficient for now ... but potentially limiting.
> Using "xmpp:host:port" or "xmpp://host:port" (or variations thereof)
> would take care of potential future requirements from what we can
> envision now ...
> Since there are already implementations of clients and
> servers/connection managers out there - the changes made should be , if
> possible , as backwardly compatible as possible.
The more I think about it, the more I don't like specifying URIs
(because there are all sorts of rules for processing those which don't
apply to us here) but I don't have strong objections to proto:host:port
(even though I think proto: is unnecessary and I think it's potentially
confusing to have something that looks like a URI but isn't). How many
people have implemented this feature (which was added to JEP-0124 in June)?
Jabber Software Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3641 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards