Re: [apps-discuss] IRC URIs to denote users

[Melvin Carvalho <[e-mail]>]

On 24 September 2014 06:06, Sean Leonard <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 9/22/2014 1:50 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>> I was wondering if IRC URIs are standardized at all?
>>
>> The latest I found was :
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-butcher-irc-url-04
>>
>> I have a use case of marking reputation from one system (web chat room)
>> to an IRC chat room, but I require an identifier for the user.
>>
>> The suggestions so far have been:
>>
>> irc://user@host
>> irc://user@host/ -- trailing slash
>> irc:user@host -- similar to xmpp
>> irc://host/#user -- fragment could be problematic as per RFC 9386
>>
>> I've gone with the second option for the moment
>>
>> Any pointers would be most welcome.
>>
>
> Based on the options presented, I think the third one, irc:user@host,
> best captures the spirit of the URI syntax.
>
> RFC 3986 Section 3 and 4.3 define absolute URIs as scheme : hier-part;
> hier-part can be one of:
> "//" authority path-abempty
> path-absolute
> path-rootless
> path-empty
>
> The first one is usually used for identifying resources accessible via
> some Internet-related protocol where the authority is a host:port (plus
> optional userinfo to log in to the host:port), followed by some
> server-specific path to the resource (usually hierarchical). The second one
> is for some server-specific path (usually hierarchical), where the server's
> host:port are "obvious". For example, <ldap:///o=University%20of%20Michigan,c=US>
> means "an LDAP URL referring to the University of Michigan entry, available
> from an LDAP server of the client's choosing" (RFC 4516 Section 4).
> <file:///> URIs (URLs) refer to the local file system.
>
> The fourth one, path-empty, isn't used much...but the gist (I suppose) is
> if you want to skip right to the ? query or # fragment parts. magnet:
> (provisional) URIs use this.
>
> Thus, we arrive at path-rootless, which is basically "Everything Else". In
> this case, you are trying basically to identify an IRC object (a user), and
> tag it in such a way that it's not an e-mail address. <[e-mail]>
> looks like an e-mail address. <irc:[e-mail]> looks the best to
> me; it's obviously not an e-mail address. Similarly, it's obviously not an
> address to an IRC channel. If you say irc://host/user, you're sharing the
> channel namespace with the user namespace...not a great idea. If you say
> irc://host/#user, you are saying that the path is "/", which (in the
> context of users/nicknames) doesn't make a whole lot of sense since
> users/nicknames are specific to servers/hosts, not to sub-parts of
> servers/hosts.
>
> The telnet: URL/URI is the most analogous to irc URIs--and telnet URLs go
> way back to Tim Berners-Lee's [original paper]. In the original, it's
> telnet://userinfo@host:port -- with no trailing slash (i.e., authority
> path-abempty). In RFC 1738 sec. 3.8, it's telnet://userinfo@host:port/ --
> with trailing slash (i.e., authority path-abempty).
>
> The ssh URI proposal (draft-ietf-secsh-scp-sftp-ssh-uri-04) has no
> trailing slash...but it also says that the path part is irrelevant. In any
> event, the overall gist is that "//" at the beginning is sufficient to
> distinguish "network paths" from "other things".
>

Thank you

<irc:[e-mail]>

I like this alot.  I think it makes most sense for my implementation, at
this point in time.


>
> Sean
>
> [original paper]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/
> viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.45.1836 "Universal Document Identifiers on the
> Network"
>
>