Re: [Uri-review] [apps-discuss] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered?

Agreed. We would register it immediately as historical.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395#section-4

On 11/26/12 1:27 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
> Looping the XMPP wg list.  If we register it, let's make sure that
> registration says "DO NOT USE IN THE FUTURE".
> 
> On 11/26/12 11:50 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
> 
>> On 11/26/12 9:37 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> On 2012-11-26 16:28, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> On 11/25/12 5:04 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>>>>> I've just been digging around the XMPP specs, and I notive they
>>>>> make reference to required namespaces of the form "jabber:client"
>>>>> and "jabber:server" (cf.
>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3920#section-11.2, esp sect 11.2.2).
>>>>>
>>>>> Examples in sections 8 and 9 of that spec reinforce the indication
>>>>> that jabber: is being used as a URI scheme (rather than a namespace
>>>>> prefix).
>>>>
>>>> The 'jabber:' string was used in the earliest days of the jabberd
>>>> server project when the core developers didn't really understand XML
>>>> namespaces (which were quite new at the time). It is not a URI scheme,
>>>> just a mistake. :)
>>>>
>>>>> But looking at http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes.html I'm
>>>>> not seeing any mention of jabber:.
>>>>>
>>>>> Assuming I'm reading this right... it's probably unfortunate that
>>>>> that this use of jabber: has come about (like dav: before it?) but
>>>>> I guess it's now entrenched and should at least be registered?
>>>>
>>>> I have never registered it and I hesitate to do so now because I think
>>>> it would cause more confusion than it's worth. We do have the 'xmpp:'
>>>> URI scheme for pointing to JabberIDs.
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> I think it would still be good to have it in the registry, and have the
>>> documentation explain what's going on.
>>>
>>> I believe the "DAV:" scheme was created for the same purpose, and we
>>> have documented that in
>>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc4918.html#rfc.section.21.1>.
>>
>> Thanks for the pointer. And yes, as with "DAV:", the "jabber:" prefix
>> was defined before standard best practices emerged for XML namespaces...
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> -- 
>> Peter Saint-Andre
>> https://stpeter.im/
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> apps-discuss mailing list
>> apps-discuss@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss