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

Trejkaz trejkaz at trypticon.org
Wed Dec 7 23:18:39 UTC 2005


> Trejkaz wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Backwards compatibility.

Let's be clear here.  The two possibilities were:

  1. A client sending a ":5600" appended onto the host would require the
     agent to know that it's going to be there.  Assuming it knows to parse
     the port out, then it would fall back, but that requires significantly
     more smarts than the alternative:

  2. A client sending a port in a separate attribute would have that
     attribute completely ignored, which seems to be cleanly backwards
     compatible.

TX





More information about the Standards mailing list