[Standards-JIG] XMPP URIs was: Two questions regardingJEP-0124HTTP Binding
stpeter at jabber.org
Wed Dec 7 17:47:29 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?
Jabber Software Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3641 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards