[Standards] summary: allowable characters
stpeter at jabber.org
Thu Aug 2 18:53:09 UTC 2007
Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> 4. One solution would be to define version 2 of nodeprep in rfc3920bis.
>> As far as I can see, nodeprep2 would allow " & ' < > since those can be
>> escaped in XML (e.g., XMPP 'to' address) as the predefined entities
>> " & ' < >. I'm not sure why : was prohibited in the
>> first place so that would be allowed. I suppose / was prohibited because
>> it's used later in a full JID to differentiate the resource identifier,
>> but in a node identifier I don't think it would be confusing so that
>> would be allowed.
> user/id at domain and domain/res at restofres cant be differentiated if / is
Interesting, I think you're right. Consider "foo.com/bar at jabber.org", it
could be the bare JID of a user "foo.com/bar" at jabber.org or a domain
of foo.com with a resource of "bar at jabber.org". Not good.
> Btw, changing nodeprep now will cause quite a lot of problem with
> existing deployments - since the contact jid's are part of the user data
> - and would pretty much mean we cant adopt bis spec.
What specifically breaks? Does it depend on which characters would be
allowed in nodeprep2? I agree that / and @ are problematic, but the
characters " & ' < > seem less so. But I may be missing something.
> The number of deployments with these usecases are not as specialized as
> it might seem.
I agree with that. Which is why I stand by XEP-0106. In part I think
that those who are so opposed to XEP-0106 are not familiar with the
deployment issues. But I agree that XEP-0106 needs to be clarified in
the ways we discussed recently. It's on my list to complete those
clarifications and post an interim version.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7354 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards