[Standards-JIG] LAST CALL: JEP-0106 (JID Escaping)
richard at dobson-i.net
Thu May 5 08:31:07 UTC 2005
> Well, IRC channels begin with the # character. For example, to join the
> channel #debian on irc.debian.org via the IRC gateway at irc.jabber.org,
> you would type the following as a groupchat room in your Jabber client:
> #debian%irc.debian.org at irc.jabber.org
> So if you were accustomed to joining a channel called #40;daysand40nights
> on irc.alladin.lit via irc.jabber.org, then it is within the realm of
> possibility that you might try to join that channel but actually be
> directed to some other channel, namely:
> @daysand40nights%irc.alladin.lit at irc.example.com.
> However, I see this as much less likely than problems with MSN gateways
> because (1) very few people have ever used one of the IRC gateways (2)
> very few IRC channels begin with #xx; and (3) very few Jabber users ever
> put groupchat rooms in their rosters.
They might not necessarily put them into their rosters but they do often put
them into their bookmarks which is an equally problematic place IMO, if not
moreso as it couldnt be automatically updated like a roster could be when a
transport is upgraded to use the new escaping method (i.e. it could
unsubscribe etc from the old contact and resubscribe the new ones the next
time the user uses it, which is one of the reasons that I fail to see it
being as much of a problem as some people are making out for MSN transport
users, or if its been implemented by both sides it becomes even less of a
problem as roster subsync will deal with it with even less hassle).
I thought that the main stated goal of using # was not breaking anything at
all, which means we cannot use #, trying to rationalise it as "its fine
because it wont affect many people" is the same point I made about the MSN
transport which you seemed to ignore, sorry but this does rather strike me
as double standards, if we arnt using # for the reason of not breaking
anything then we really should go along with something more standard like %.
>> But if this other IRC transport is actually in use anywhere, maybe
>> character should be chosen. How about backslash? It doesn't appear to
>> be on
>> the prohibited list, and is already fairly familiar to people as an
>> character. And I don't see how any transport would be using this as a
> So \40 for @ (etc.)?
Yea that would seem better to me, at least its using a character that I
havent really seen used, so it really wont break anything.
More information about the Standards