Hello, On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 09:05:42AM +0100, Carlo v. Loesch wrote: > On the technical issue of [EMAIL PROTECTED] i must say I really > dislike how Jabber cannot deal with a clean transparent notation > like msn:[EMAIL PROTECTED] These kludgy jid-deformations are both ugly and > hard to understand for the end user. Why should she put the hostname > into the user field and a fake hostname into the hostname field, > when adding an MSN buddy to her roster? Also icq:12345 would be much > nicer than the kludge that transports provide. Additionally, you > leave it to the server to route to the transport. Why should you have > a lot of new friendships just because you switched to a different > transport (= the one you had broke down or you no longer trust his > privacy promises). > > I strongly support the idea of abandoning the [EMAIL PROTECTED] requirement > for jids and let jids be opaque strings to be interpreted by the > receiving entity.
That would change the idea of XMPP completely, which isn't a nice idea IMHO. However, you could have reserved JIDs on a server like icq:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (which could be alias and the server could cope with that correctly and nothing would change for the server) and removing the server part would mean "On the same server". That is however a problem, since it would collide with addressing server only. Maybe something like [EMAIL PROTECTED] would be acceptable as well and the server could have alias that icq means icq.jabber.org or so. And it would make sense as well, since it would read 123456789 at ICQ. Anyway, how would you handle the JIds as any string, using some heuristics? Have a nice day -- There's the light at the end of the the Windows. -- Havlik Denis Michal 'vorner' Vaner
pgpMpF7g7QaaK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
