Ian Paterson wrote:
Including the host and port still seems fine to me, I'm just not convinced it needs to be represented as an xmpp: URI.Why not just route="host:port"?Well, URI's are for "identifying entities that can communicate viaXMPP".
Well, xmpp: URIs are for use by non-native systems, rather than native XMPP systems. We don't say <message to='xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]'> or use them anywhere else in the protocol suite. So it strikes me as a little odd to use them here.
And the idea was that, a JEP-0124 proxy should also be able tosupport non-XMPP protocols too (you never know).
Hmm. So I could connect with my Jabber client to a JEP-0124 proxy that would enable me to authenticate directly with, say, an IRC server or SIMPLE server? So route='irc://freenode.net' or whatever? I don't think we ever intended that but maybe I'm missing something. ;-)
That said, I don't have a big problem removing the "xmpp:", if that's what people prefer. We'd have to change existing implementations... Perhaps we could simply define the format within the JEP and not call it a URI? "xmpp:" ihost [ ":" port ]
Well, let's think some more about the possible use cases. If we really do foresee using JEP-0124 to connect to non-XMPP systems then specifying an xmpp: URI might be the right thing to do, but really I think this is the HTTP binding for XMPP not the HTTP binding for XMPP, IRC, SIP, AIM, MSN, and so on...
Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre Jabber Software Foundation http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
