Re: XMPP IRIs: feedback requested

Ted Hardie wrote:
> 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

Hi Ted,

That makes sense and I will adjust the text to reflect registration of a 
URI scheme, including the appropriate syntax rules. Does it make sense 
to also define, in an informational fashion, the syntax rules for XMPP IRIs?

Peter