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

Re: XMPP IRIs: feedback requested

From: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 14:08:42 -0700
Message-Id: <p0623090cbf3e6e32f00f@[192.168.1.4]>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@jabber.org>
Cc: uri@w3.org

At 1:57 PM -0600 8/30/05, 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

Sorry for the delay in replying.  I think step 1 is correct and that it implies URI syntax be
used in the scheme definition.  I think the next bit is to write "There will also be XMPP
IRIs, and they are transformed into XMPP URIs as specified in RFC3987."  Give any
special rules that will apply to the coding of XMPP IRIs in that section.  That won't
over-ride any of the rules in 3987 or the URI STD.

Eventually IANA may need a registry that says "These schemes are both IRI and URI
capable", but we can't have one that says "These schemes are just IRIs".

Do other folks think this makes sense as a way to proceed?
			regards,
				Ted


>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
>>
>>
>
>
>
>Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s"
>Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s"
>Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:smime 149.p7s (    /    ) (003290CF)
Received on Friday, 2 September 2005 21:08:55 GMT

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