[Standards-JIG] proto-JEP: Smart Presence Distribution

Richard Dobson richard at dobson-i.net
Wed May 17 21:53:18 UTC 2006

> | > | be determined protocol which is represented by its own JID, and any 
> | > | <presence from='romeo at montague/inlove' to='s4134edd at multicast.capulet'/>
> | > 
> | > oh i love jid hacks  :)
> | > 
> | > if jid were defined as a url, one could encode things nicer,
> | > but huh that's another story.
> | 
> | Huh? sorry but what are you on about?, this is not a hack in any way 
> | shape or form.
> a subdomain which doesn't exist?

It does exist otherwise you wouldnt be able to address it, its simply a 
component on the server just MUC is.

> a username which is a secret code?

Secret code???? Its no more a secret code than a room on a MUC component is.

> wouldn't xmpp:capulet/%s4134edd be a nicer encoding for instance?
> you could even transfer it in a non-xmpp medium.

no thats horrible and means the multicasting component is completely 
tied into the jabber server and cannot be separated, in jabber we 
usually try to use a distributed architecture, we certainly dont tie 
specs down to prevent them from being able to be.

Can you also explain how a JID of s4134edd at multicast.capulet is any less 
tranferable to a non-xmpp medium than xmpp:capulet/%s4134edd is? I 
cannot see how they are really any different.

> but yes i imagine you got used to the string at string notation limitation.
> i find it quite impractical i cannot specify a person on a different
> protocol as a target in an xmpp message. like for instance a person on
> irc. they have irc: urls, instead i have to use a component with a
> subdomain-like syntax. and obviously our own addresses won't work:
> psyc://psyced.org/~lynX is illegal even if both the jabber client and
> server knew what we're talking about. whereas you can very well use
> xmpp:user at host in a psyc message and the system will deliver the
> message to a jabber server. you could say psyc doesn't just federate
> users and chats, it also federates chat protocols and addressing forms.

Well that is simply how XMPP works, just because XMPP doesnt support the 
use of other protocols URI's (why should it?) and uses gateway 
components to translate between protocols, I really cant see what your 
problem is here, clients can easily accept those URI's and internally 
translate those URI's into the appropriate JIDs without a problem, there 
is nothing stopping them. But this is entirely off topic so if you 
really want to rant about this further I suggest you start another thread.


More information about the Standards mailing list