Tomasz Sterna wrote:
2005/9/25, Johannes Fröhlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:I agree with Matt that it's a bummer how jids are constructed.
Tough luck, eh? :-)
A muc-room would be "server.net/muc/room" andJIDs are not hierarchical. And putting "/" character in resource will not make them so. ;-)a user using this mucroom would have the jid "[EMAIL PROTECTED]/muc/room" or just "[EMAIL PROTECTED]/room".The RFC says that the resource is a property of bare JID. In this case we are talking about bare JID of "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and its resource "muc/room". Your proposal is to create a special case with different than normal semantics. This is not a good idea IMO.
Agreed. And in any case, it's too late. Something as fundamental as how JIDs are constructed is not going to change at this point, so there's no use in discussing it (unless you want to discuss what you think is bad about JIDs as a basis for building a better addressing scheme for some other messaging system).
Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre Jabber Software Foundation http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
