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]
There is no msn: URI scheme. When you say "Jabber" you really mean the existing (and older) client-proxy gateways. That's a different story. Addresses other than native JIDs are not part of XMPP, and why should they be? However, a client could handle im: URIs if desired. Not that it's supported by the likes of AOL, ICQ, MSN, and Yahoo. > These kludgy jid-deformations are both ugly and > hard to understand for the end user. Don't show it to the end user. That's an interface issue, not a technical issue. > 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). Agreed. So we need real server to server between networks. Just get them all to switch to XMPP... > 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. Not going to happen. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre Jabber Software Foundation http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
