psa:
Robin Redeker wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 09:20:27AM +0200, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
>>> I think the whole XEP should be renamed to something like:
>>>
>>> XEP-0106 - JID Mapping for Gateways
>> This would be better. But it breaks the generic usage of JIDs for both users
>> and gateways. It will create a lot of trouble.
>>
>
> The XEP seems to already create a lot of trouble. Just remind me to
> register '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' when every client unescapes JIDs ;-)
No problem. The spec says:
"The character sequence \20 MUST NOT be the first or last character of
an escaped node identifier."
Besides this I still think the XEP is misleading since it frequently mentions
"d'[EMAIL PROTECTED]" as it was an ordinary user (and is) and it leads
a developer (me) to believe that this mapping shall be generally applied.
Also, the motivations behind the XEP as mentioned in its Introduction
uses ordinary user's name (O'Hara and D'Artagnan).
I can see that the XEP is useful in both situations, ordinary users where the
node+domain+resource split is not known beforehand, and where we need
a 1-to-1 mapping, which therefore excludes "@" and/or "/",
and the handling of non-XMPP addresses, where also the "@" and "/" characters
need to be escaped.
Mats
