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

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

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/