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

[Ian Paterson]

> Including the host and port still seems fine to me, I'm just not 
> convinced it needs to be represented as an xmpp: URI.
> Why not just route="host:port"?

Well, URI's are for "identifying entities that can communicate via
XMPP". And the idea was that, a JEP-0124 proxy should also be able to
support non-XMPP protocols too (you never know). The Introduction says:
"the protocol is extensible and could be used to implement any
bidirectional stream of XML stanzas."

That said, I don't have a big problem removing the "xmpp:", if that's
what people prefer. We'd have to change existing implementations...

Perhaps we could simply define the format within the JEP and not call it
a URI?
"xmpp:" ihost [ ":" port ]

- Ian