On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Peter Saint-Andre stpeter-at-stpeter.im |jdev2| <...> wrote: > 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.
That's what I feared. I guess I'll have to pinch my nose real hard here because apparently Mozilla can parse URIs in the form of foo:bar but turns them into foo:///bar internally. > 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. :) I guess you say so because you're thinking of the scenario (admittedly, the most common) where a web page points to an XMPP entity. The page would have no knowledge of the account the visitor is going to use to interact with that entity. On the other hand I'm thinking of the scenario where a URI is generated on the client side to uniquely identify an entity. The account information in this case is available and relevant: xmpp://j...@home/m...@home is very different than xmpp://c...@bigcorp/m...@home. Imagine saving those as one-click shortcuts. Without the authority part, the client would have to ask the user what account to use. It could save the account-entity association in some proprietary way, but the URI seems more elegant and portable to me. Anyway, thanks for clarifying. :) Massimiliano _______________________________________________ JDev mailing list Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20 Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
