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

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Mon, 26 November 2012 16:37 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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 9C44521F8566 for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 08:37:57 -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=[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 Qed4x0tikQlM for <uri-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 08:37:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7604E21F8540 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 08:37:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 26 Nov 2012 16:37:55 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.102]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp033) with SMTP; 26 Nov 2012 17:37:55 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+WZMlDXl6WvHlc5z8FoawD8tPfwprmBZDHZDOj4s 4sVBLfpwUzK3sl
Message-ID: <50B39AE0.4010607@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 17:37:52 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
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-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
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 16:37:57 -0000

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