Then I just didn't follow the references, my bad. Pavel
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:45:44 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pavel Simerda wrote: > > > Btw, what I didn't know before... I have looked into the CID/MID rfc > > and there's nothing about requiring the at-sign. It's only written > > in the common practice sections but there they use. And they do use > > local hstnames, not shared strings. > > > > But then "xmpp.sha1.da39aee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd807099" (or > > similar syntax) is just as conforming as any other syntax. > > > > The interesting point of the RFC is that the CIDs must be globally > > unique but it apparently leaves it for the implementors to be clever > > enough not to have the same idea. > > > > It depends if you want to break common practice. > > I don't think that's right. Looking at RFC 2111 we find: > > content-id = url-addr-spec > > and > > url-addr-spec = addr-spec ; URL encoding of RFC 822 addr-spec > > Then consulting RFC 822 we find: > > addr-spec = local-part "@" domain > > However, I think we don't have to use a UUID for the local-part, we > could use a hash. > > > The hostname is just useless for the XMPP purposes. But if we keep > > it for common practice, I'd suggest a constant one then (as it's > > useless anyway). > > I don't see a use for it now, but that doesn't mean it's useless. > However, I'm OK with hardcoding it to bob.xmpp.org or something. > > > If we need metadata to specify the origin, we can add an > > additional optional metadata element inside the <data/>. > > Sure, we could do that. So something like this? > > <data cid='[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > origin='http://bundles.jabbim.cz/'/> > > Peter > -- Web: http://www.pavlix.net/ Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net OpenID: pavlix.net
