Ralph Meijer wrote: > On Thu, 2008-02-07 at 09:04 -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> Ralph Meijer wrote: >>> On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 09:37 -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>>> [..] >>>> >>>> So if there is no node identifier involved, are you suggesting that we >>>> would do (2) instead of (1) below? >>>> >>>> 1. xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> 2. xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> >>>> How do we know that the query type is indeed empty? Do we need to do (3) >>>> instead? >>>> >>>> 3. xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]; >>> Easy, there is no URI query component in 1). I've always said that >>> applications that want to deference an XMPP URI like 1), should do >>> Service Discovery on the entity's JID that is identified by the URI, and >>> present the user possible actions based on that. >>> >>> For example, you can have a URI like <xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. >>> >From the URI alone, the application cannot know if this is a user's IM >>> account or a MUC room. Depending on the disco identity, an application >>> can present the action "open a chat to this user", or "add this user to >>> my roster", or "add this room to my roster" or "join this room". >> Agreed. I think we say that in XEP-0147 or RFC 4622, so do you propose >> any modifications to those documents? > > No, it seems to me that we have sailed beyond that point and Dave made a > couple of nice observations that speak in favor of having something like > <xmpp:pubsub.jabber.org?;node=mynode>. I am just going ahead with using > such URIs to point to pubsub nodes in <link/> elements in HTML for > auto-discovery purposes.
OK. I think it would be good for us to document that in XEP-0060 and also XEP-0030 (which are the two places where we define nodes). Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
