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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Mon, 26 November 2012 18:50 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3C2D21F8621; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:50:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2xPqMNbGr7VW; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:50:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 027C521F8613; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:50:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.129.24.67] (unknown [128.107.239.234]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C750640092; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:55:11 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <50B3B9EC.6010007@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:50:20 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
References: <50B2095C.2000501@ninebynine.org> <50B38AAA.5030908@stpeter.im> <50B39AE0.4010607@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <50B39AE0.4010607@gmx.de>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>, Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered?
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:50:26 -0000

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/