Manuel Castelo Branco
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Standards Digest, Vol 44, Issue 83
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:53:28 -0500
>Send Standards mailing list submissions to
> [email protected]
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of Standards digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: <[CDATA[ in XMPP (Andreas Monitzer)
> 2. Re: <[CDATA[ in XMPP (Robin Redeker)
> 3. Re: JID Escaping (Peter Saint-Andre)
> 4. Re: <[CDATA[ in XMPP (Robin Redeker)
> 5. Re: <[CDATA[ in XMPP (Peter Saint-Andre)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:14:47 +0200
>From: Andreas Monitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [Standards] <[CDATA[ in XMPP
>To: XMPP Extension Discussion List <[email protected]>
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>On Jul 30, 2007, at 23:27, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>
> > Andreas Monitzer wrote:
> >> What's so innovative about writing yet another XML parser?
> >
> > For that matter, what's so innovative about writing yet another XMPP
> > server or client? ;-)
>
>Well, for one thing, there's a reason I'm coding for the client with
>the largest established userbase on the Mac, instead of rolling my
>own :).
>However, UIs for IM clients can still do something the others haven't
>done before, there's a lot of flexibility. Additionally, XMPP can be
>used for chat systems embedded in other applications (MMORPG,
>collaboration software, etc).
>
>On the server side, I don't see much point in it though, maybe if you
>believe you can do it better than anybody else (like, implementing
>PEP properly).
>
>andy
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:16:00 +0200
>From: Robin Redeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [Standards] <[CDATA[ in XMPP
>To: [email protected]
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 09:58:34PM +0200, Andreas Monitzer wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 2007, at 21:50, Sergei Golovan wrote:
> >
> > >I would say "It makes developing custom parsers more difficult". But
> > >any existing XML parser shouldn't have any problem.
> >
> > Nobody should write their own XML parser anyways, unless it's
>
>Your assumption is that XMPP is XML. I think it has been said in
>multiple discussions on this list and in the jdev chat room that that
>assumption is not correct :-)
>
>It's said that XMPP is just 'an application' or 'a subset' of XML. And
>I heard from some people that XMPP's "XML" was even simplified to allow
>writing of own "more efficient" ""XML""(XMPP) parsers.
>
> > absolutely necessary (e.g. programming for a platform where no XML
> > parser is available), since these kind of implementations are bound
> > to contain serious issues
>
> > (XML is much more complicated than people think).
>
>I very much agree with that observation :-)
>
>
>R
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:32:33 -0600
>From: Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [Standards] JID Escaping
>To: XMPP Extension Discussion List <[email protected]>
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
> > Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> >> Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
>
> >>> For the server, this xep is required since its user population could
> >>> include users which have these prohibited characters in the uid .. and
> >>> so requires it to identify the backend user (hence need to standardize)
> >>
> >> Well it's really required only if you have customers who want to port
> >> existing UserIDs (e.g., email addresses) to JIDs.
> >
> > Unfortunately, this is a very frequent deployment.
>
>Personally I think this is fortunate -- organizations are rolling out
>Jabber services to their large installed base of email users. Let's ask
>ourselves how we can make that easier. Enabling those organizations to
>map existing userids to JIDs makes sense. Saying "you can't re-use
>existing userids so some of your users will need to have different
>addresses or not use Jabber at all" makes no sense.
>
>Email allows the following characters that are disallowed in JIDs (by
>which I mean local-part of email address and node identifier portion of
>JID):
>
>&
>'
>/
>
>So IMHO the focus should be on those characters (the same mapping
>applies to SIP addresses, which might be re-used in the same way that
>email addresses are re-used, though I see that as less likely).
>
>And again I ask, is that "gatewaying" or the automated construction of a
>native XMPP address from an existing userid? I don't know that it makes
>much of a difference really, but to me gatewaying is for exchange of
>messages between different communication systems, not pure address
>mapping to re-use userids.
>
> > It is not that is only mailid which has this issue - there are also SSO
> > mechanism of form [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>But is [EMAIL PROTECTED] going to be re-used as an XMPP node identifier?
>
>/psa
>-------------- next part --------------
>A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>Name: smime.p7s
>Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
>Size: 7354 bytes
>Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
>Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070730/66011de8/attachment-0001.bin
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:31:14 +0200
>From: Robin Redeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [Standards] <[CDATA[ in XMPP
>To: [email protected]
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 02:13:36AM +0400, Sergei Golovan wrote:
> > On 7/31/07, Mickael Remond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > XMPP is XML.
> >
> > XMPP is not XML.
>
>Looks like we need a bit more clarification about this issue in the
>upcoming rfc3920bis, no?
>
>I would even recommend inventing a new term for it: XMPPL
>
>If we don't call something XML which clearly is not XML, then there
>aren't any further confusions possible.
>
>But still the term 'XML' is quite often used in the XMPP specs.
>
>(Please take this mail as serious as you like, I don't know how serious I mean it.)
>
>
>R
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:48:53 -0600
>From: Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [Standards] <[CDATA[ in XMPP
>To: XMPP Extension Discussion List <[email protected]>
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>Robin Redeker wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 02:13:36AM +0400, Sergei Golovan wrote:
> >> On 7/31/07, Mickael Remond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> XMPP is XML.
> >> XMPP is not XML.
> >
> > Looks like we need a bit more clarification about this issue in the
> > upcoming rfc3920bis, no?
>
>Quite possibly.
>
> > I would even recommend inventing a new term for it: XMPPL
>
>Cute.
>
> > If we don't call something XML which clearly is not XML, then there
> > aren't any further confusions possible.
> >
> > But still the term 'XML' is quite often used in the XMPP specs.
>
>Interestingly, the first paragraph of the XML specification says:
>
>***
>
>Extensible Markup Language, abbreviated XML, describes a class of data
>objects called XML documents and partially describes the behavior of
>computer programs which process them. XML is an application profile or
>restricted form of SGML, the Standard Generalized Markup Language [ISO
>8879]. By construction, XML documents are conforming SGML documents.
>
>***
>
>Is it true that "XML is SGML"? Obviously some SGML pedants would object
>because XML is "an application profile or restricted form of SGML". Yet
>"XML documents are conforming SGML documents"! So here we have a rough
>definition of conformance, and a working example since XML conforms to SGML.
>
>Similarly, a complete XMPP session (with start and end stream tags) is a
>conforming XML document. Just because the session does not include
>comments, processing instructions, DTD subsets, entity references other
>than those predefined in the XML spec, other other restricted features
>does not mean that the session is not an XML document.
>
>So we could say this in rfc3920bis:
>
>***
>
>The Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) defines a class of
>data objects called XML streams as well as the behavior of computer
>programs that process XML streams. XMPP is an application profile or
>restricted form of the Extensible Markup Language (XML). A complete XML
>stream (including start and end stream tags) is a conforming XML document.
>
>***
>
> > (Please take this mail as serious as you like, I don't know how serious I mean it.)
>
>Don't worry, I take all of your emails that way. :P
>
>/psa
>
>-------------- next part --------------
>A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
>Name: smime.p7s
>Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
>Size: 7354 bytes
>Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
>Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070730/25ccf648/attachment.bin
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Standards mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
>
>
>End of Standards Digest, Vol 44, Issue 83
>*****************************************
Seja um dos primeiros a testar o novo Windows Live Mail Beta - grátis Acesse e inscreva-se agora!
