On 26/01/13 22:03, Mikko Lehto wrote: > 2013-01-07 (Mon) 15:16 UTC +0100 Daniel Pocock <[email protected]>: > >> However, im: implies text chat only. Are there equivalent prefixes to >> suggest voice and/or video sessions, and is there any generic prefix to >> suggest any arbitrary possibility (including smtp) at the caller's >> discretion? > > Hi Daniel > > Are you aware of acct: URI scheme¹ ? > Maybe that can be utilized. > > [1] draft-ietf-appsawg-acct-uri
Thanks for bringing that to my attention, I think it almost addresses what I had in mind s4.7 interoperability doesn't mention the fact that xmpp: and sip: have slightly different sets of permitted characters for the user@ portion of a URI. s4.3 could probably be extended to define a subset that is compatible with mailto:, xmpp: and sip: all at once
