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

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

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>.

Best regards, Julian