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. -- Groetjes, ralphm
