W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > September 2005

Re: XMPP IRIs: feedback requested

From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@jabber.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:07:27 -0600
Message-ID: <43167E7F.6040906@jabber.org>
To: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
Cc: uri@w3.org
I'm wondering if something like the following changes would be 
sufficient, making reference to the XMPP IRI example shown in the 
current version of the document:

        <xmpp:ji&#x159;i@&#x10D;echy.example/v Praze>

### NEW SECTION ###

2.10  Mapping of IRIs to URIs

    It may be necessary to determine the URI associated with an XMPP IRI.
    To do so, an application MUST follow the mapping procedure specified
    in Section 3.1 of [IRI].

    For example, the previous XMPP IRI would map to the following URI:

        <xmpp:ji%C5%99i@%C4%8Dechy.example/v%20Praze>

### END ###

And, in Section 3.2 (URI scheme syntax), to add the following sentence:

    "If it is necessary to convert the following syntax into
    URI syntax, the mapping procedure specified in Section 3.1
    of [IRI] MUST be followed."

This would not define the scheme in URI syntax, but would provide a 
reference to the section of RFC 3987 that specifies the mapping of IRIs 
to URIs.

Peter

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Barring definition of a separate mechanism (do you mean a separate IANA 
> mechanism for registration of IRI schemes?), I assume we should (1) 
> proceed with registration of a URI scheme in accordance with established 
> procedures and (2) define the scheme in terms of URI syntax rather than 
> IRI syntax. #1 seems straightforward but I remain somewhat confused 
> about #2 since previous IESG feedback indicated that it would be 
> preferable in our case to re-use the transformation rules already 
> specified in RFC 3987.
> 
> Peter
> 
> Ted Hardie wrote:
> 
>> Hi Larry,
>>     I think that it's going to be confusing saying that
>> some URI schemes use IRI syntax.  I think it needs to be a
>> separate discussion and mechanism.
>>     Just my two cents,
>>                 Ted
>>
>>
>>
>> At 1:14 PM -0700 8/22/05, Larry Masinter wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe we should address this in the URI scheme registration
>>> document--that schemes could be defined in terms of "IRI" syntax,
>>> using RFC 3987 rules to transform them to URI syntax.
>>>
>>> Right now, the guidelines don't really mention that as
>>> a possibility.
>>>
>>> Even so, it should still be called a "URI scheme", even
>>> if it is defined using "IRI syntax".
>>>
>>> Looking at RFC 3920, does the xmpp URI scheme assume
>>> that you're using the TCP binding? Would there be a different
>>> scheme for a binding that uses polling over HTTP?
>>> Is the "xmpp" scheme only for XMPP version 1.0, or is
>>> the version negotiated independently?
>>>
>>> Larry
>>
>>
>>

Received on Thursday, 1 September 2005 04:09:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:35 GMT