[Standards-JIG] XMPP URIs was: Two questions regardingJEP-0124HTTP Binding

Christopher Zorn christopher.zorn at gmail.com
Wed Dec 7 18:44:47 UTC 2005


On 12/7/05, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
> 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
> >>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards-jig/2005-June/007818.html.
> >>
> >>
> >> 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)?
>

It is implemented in punjab, and it checks for xmpp: to start. Other
than that, I do not parse it as an URI, so I do not think it is
necessary. host:port is fine by me. :)



More information about the Standards mailing list