[jdev] An old pseudo standard, but is it still good?

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Carlo v. Loesch wrote:

> On the technical issue of user%host at msn.transport i must say I really
> dislike how Jabber cannot deal with a clean transparent notation
> like msn:user at host. 

There is no msn: URI scheme.

When you say "Jabber" you really mean the existing (and older)
client-proxy gateways. That's a different story. Addresses other than
native JIDs are not part of XMPP, and why should they be? However, a
client could handle im: URIs if desired. Not that it's supported by the
likes of AOL, ICQ, MSN, and Yahoo.

> These kludgy jid-deformations are both ugly and
> hard to understand for the end user. 

Don't show it to the end user. That's an interface issue, not a
technical issue.

> Why should she put the hostname
> into the user field and a fake hostname into the hostname field,
> when adding an MSN buddy to her roster? Also icq:12345 would be much
> nicer than the kludge that transports provide. Additionally, you
> leave it to the server to route to the transport. Why should you have
> a lot of new friendships just because you switched to a different
> transport (= the one you had broke down or you no longer trust his
> privacy promises).

Agreed. So we need real server to server between networks. Just get them
all to switch to XMPP...

> I strongly support the idea of abandoning the user at host requirement
> for jids and let jids be opaque strings to be interpreted by the
> receiving entity.

Not going to happen.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation
http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://www.jabber.org/jdev/attachments/20061116/ec41b877/attachment-0002.bin>