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? Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
