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

Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org> Mon, 26 November 2012 18:54 UTC

Return-Path: <GK@ninebynine.org>
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 7BF4A21F852D; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:54:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 NUzbYiLUCstQ; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:54:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay3.mail.ox.ac.uk (relay3.mail.ox.ac.uk [163.1.2.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1975121F8449; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:54:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp1.mail.ox.ac.uk ([129.67.1.207]) by relay3.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from <GK@ninebynine.org>) id 1Td3pW-0007nX-Au; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:54:54 +0000
Received: from gklyne.plus.com ([80.229.154.156] helo=conina.local) by smtp1.mail.ox.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <GK@ninebynine.org>) id 1Td3pW-0001fv-3J; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:54:54 +0000
Message-ID: <50B3A184.9080100@ninebynine.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 17:06:12 +0000
From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
References: <50B2095C.2000501@ninebynine.org> <50B38AAA.5030908@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <50B38AAA.5030908@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Oxford-Username: zool0635
Cc: "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] [apps-discuss] 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 18:54:59 -0000

Peter,

I take your points, but...

As I read the XMPP spec, a string "jabber:client" or "jabber:server" is used in 
a context where a URI is required (i.e. an xmlns attribute).  Hence in this 
usage, "jabber:" *is* a URI scheme name.   (Consider - if someone introduced a 
genuine jabber: scheme, then wanted to use it for XML namespaces in an XMPP 
stream, they could run into problems.)  It's very similar to the way @dav:@ is 
used by WebDAV, and that *is* registered as a URI scheme.

To the extent that the registry aims to document actual usage, I think 
registration is appropriate, probably linked with some verbiage that makes it 
clear this is a historical "accident" rather than intended for general use.

#g
--


On 26/11/2012 15:28, 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.
>
> Peter
>
> - --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlCziqkACgkQNL8k5A2w/vwWLACeK92mGiyENuSi36azX09h2NxH
> 7RAAnjAYU89bIFoJec0qh9DxPBq0GgYa
> =PBrH
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>