-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 1/26/13 4:30 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: > > > 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
Please do send feedback about the acct-uri spec to the [email protected] list. The Working Group Last Call started today. > 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. Yes, that's a fun problem. See section 4 of this Internet-Draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-saintandre-sip-xmpp-core/ > s4.3 could probably be extended to define a subset that is > compatible with mailto:, xmpp: and sip: all at once It's not the intent of the 'acct' URI to be such a subset. However, if you think that's a desirable feature then please provide input during the aforementioned last call. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlEGw/EACgkQNL8k5A2w/vw2KACfayxEttmh+SxR9cr+DWVDMZ49 ePoAoPFM6sbObjVHZCDKDylVcE9U5oHa =Q5oG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
