[JDEV] Protocal Specifier on jabber addresses; creation of JUPLs

[Richard Dobson]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Missig" <julian at jabber.org>
To: <jdev at jabber.org>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Protocal Specifier on jabber addresses; creation of
JUPLs

> What happens when you're already in a multi-protocol environment? In
> mozilla (with proper hacks), if I want to do something over jabber, then
> it's jabber:user at server/resource. What happens when I want to send
> something over jabber to msn? jabber:msn:user at server/resource is not a
> valid URI. That URI means username msn with password user over protocol
> jabber. Gabber already interprets jabber: as separate from mailto: for
> jabberids vs email addresses... and I believe jabber: is the proper
> protocol specifier for Jabber.

You dont have to complicate it that much, its just a way of identifying an
address that is not a native system address without having to possibly break
the address by replacing @ for % as happens at the moment for some
transports. This is protocol specifier is also used in the IMPP protocol at
an identifier for an IMPP address, e.g. impp:user at domain.com, you dont have
to add the jabber:msn:user at hotmail.com rubbish on because it is just
something internal to the im system. This would also that would allow easy
communication with IMPP or IMUnified or any other system that works by
server to server communication instead of having to pretend to be a client
session, e.g.

impp:user at domain.com
is better than
user%domain.com at impp.jabber.org

or
imunified:user at domain.com
is better than
user%domain.com at imunified.jabber.org

it is much shorter and more easy to understand and is not tied into a
specific server, also if % is a valid character in that system for an
address it would stop communication with them, because jabber would
interpret it as an @.

Also you can pass that address onto other jabber systems without causing
problems, otherwise if the other user used the address as it is even if that
users own system has its own transport servers for that protocol they would
not be used and it would be passed onto the first persons transport servers,
and if it were msn they would have to register with a different systems
transport which on msn would not work because your session on your own
systems transport servers would get logged out by msn. The only way around
the problem would be for them to edit the address to use their own systems
transport server but most people would not want to have to do that, or maybe
not even know what the correct thing to change it to is.

Anyway thats my points on the subject.

Richard