[jdev] Re: Two questions regarding JEP-0124 HTTP Binding

[Guus der Kinderen]

Ian Paterson wrote:
> The JEP states that the XMPP IRI indicates the "protocol, host, and
> port". Although the current version of the JEP does not currently
> explicitly exclude other IRI components, perhaps it should. The XMPP IRI
> SHOULD be of the form:
> "xmpp:" ihost [ ":" port ]
> 
> Can anyone think of a use case that would be prevented if we formalise
> this in the JEP? If not then I would say that 'route' attribute values
> with a different form SHOULD be silently ignored.

IMHO: if an application ask for an IRI and gets a perfectly fine IRI, it 
shouldn't return an error. In case something more specific is required, 
ask for something more specific.

If IRIs won't always be accepted, maybe the route attribute should drop 
the IRI requirement, and get some specific string requirement instead. 
That would also solve the ports-aren't-included-in-IRIs problem.