On 5/9/13 12:03 AM, Robert Quattlebaum wrote: > I couldn't resist. > > On May 7, 2013, at 11:47 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 5/7/13 12:38 PM, Simon Tennant wrote: >> >>> My next grumpy-old-man comment is the residual use of "Jabber" in the >>> specs. I'd love to submit a pull request in to fix this (via Github). >> >> Most of the main instances have been scrubbed over the years. Patches >> welcome. :P > > > I'm honestly a bit fond of the whole ongoing Romeo and Juliet theme in XEPs. > I think there is some merit to introducing a human element to such > traditionally dry topics. Sure, there is always a chance that capulet.lit > could become the next goatse.cx (or worse...*shutter*), but that seems > unlikely. > > "Vender" neutrality is somewhat important, however. <http://capulet.com/> is > indeed a real company, just as <http://montague.net/> is the official website > of the town of Montague. Perhaps it is time for the IETF to have some > "example" TLDs? > > ... ***looks up some internets*** ... > > Oh, it appears that "*.example" is such a TLD, along with "*.test" and > "*.invalid": <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.example>. > > But <[email protected]> is such an ugly JID for someone who doth teach > the torches to burn bright!
Yes, RFC 2606 provides example domains and TLDs (in fact I'll soon have an RFC published that registers the urn:example:* space), but I agree that the TLDs are ugly. We might want to transition to such JIDs, though, because it's the right thing to do (I didn't know about RFC 2606 back when I was writing the earlier JEPs and XEPs). Peter
