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". -- Groetjes, ralphm
