Massimiliano Mirra wrote: > Are these two URIs equivalent? > > xmpp:[email protected] > xmpp:///[email protected] (notice triple slash)
No, they are not. In fact, the second one is not even a valid XMPP URI because an XMPP URI with an authority component is constructed as follows: xmpp://authcomp/n...@host Where "authcomp" cannot be empty, because it too is of the form n...@host. However, I think the ABNF is wrong in RFC 5122: nodeid = *( unreserved / pct-encoded / nodeallow ) That should be: nodeid = 1*( unreserved / pct-encoded / nodeallow ) That is, a nodeid MUST NOT be of zero length, so that's a spec bug in RFC 5122. See also: http://xmpp.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc3920bis-08.html#addressing-overview For the "host" rule see here (it also cannot be of zero length): http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.2.2 If I had my way, we would remove the authority component from XMPP URIs entirely, because they are extremely confusing and unnecessary. Perhaps we can do that with rfc5122bis. :) > Both omit the authority component, the first like mailto:, the second > like file:. When in doubt, think of xmpp: URIs as like mailto:, not like file: or http: or some other hierarchical scheme. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ JDev mailing list Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20 Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
