[Standards] JID Escaping

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Mon Jul 30 19:47:14 UTC 2007


Mridul Muralidharan wrote:

> IMO, (un)escaping should only be done by the entities which need to do
> so - we should not mix a routing construct with display.

Sure. We never mess with the routing. From the client perspective,
XEP-0106 is only for display purposes.

> A client wishing to display contact should not use this xep - there are
> better ways to obtain what is to be displayed, and unescaping node is
> not the right way to go about showing 'who' the contact is.
> 
> The only real usecase I can see with this xep from clients point of view
> is to construct a jid for authorization when the node would otherwise
> contain prohibited characters.

Probably.

If XEP-0106 support were in all the clients, you could tell other people
that your JID is "tim.o'reilly at jabber.org" or whatever and things would
"just work". The problem is that JID (node) escaping support is not in
all the clients. :)

> For the server, this xep is required since its user population could
> include users which have these prohibited characters in the uid .. and
> so requires it to identify the backend user (hence need to standardize)

Well it's really required only if you have customers who want to port
existing UserIDs (e.g., email addresses) to JIDs.

> From a gateway's point of view - even if there is some other encoding
> (urlencoding, etc), it does not matter - the rest of the system does not
> depend on how the gateway encodes or decodes - ofcourse it helps to
> standardize so that implementations dont end up with illegal nodes.

Correct.

/psa

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7354 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070730/61889500/attachment.bin>


More information about the Standards mailing list