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

Peter Saint-Andre <> Mon, 26 November 2012 22:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87D2221F8447; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:56:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.299
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uXlxVDYq7OXg; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:56:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 867EB21F878A; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:56:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A0C4340092; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 16:01:28 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:56:36 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre <>
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: Graham Klyne <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Julian Reschke <>, "" <>, "" <>, "Joe Hildebrand \(jhildebr\)" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] [apps-discuss] XMPP jabber: URI scheme not registered?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 22:56:39 -0000

Hash: SHA1

On 11/26/12 3:45 PM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> On 26/11/2012 20:29, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Agreed. We would register it immediately as historical.
> Is this strictly true?  After all, doesn't XMPP still require use
> of jabber:client or jabber:server as namespaces for stanzas in XMPP
> streams?

RFC 4395 says:

   In some circumstances, it is appropriate to note a URI scheme that
   was once in use or registered but for whatever reason is no longer in
   common use or the use is not recommended.

I definitely think that 'jabber:' is not recommended. Various XML
namespaces with the 'jabber:' "scheme" are still in wide use, but we
have not minted any such namespaces since 1999 or 2000.

> My original email cited an out-of-date RFC, but I did check back
> later: [[ Definition of XML Stanza:  An XML stanza is the basic
> unit of meaning in XMPP.  A stanza is a first-level element (at
> depth=1 of the stream) whose element name is "message", "presence",
> or "iq" and whose qualifying namespace is 'jabber:client' or
> 'jabber:server'. ]] --
> In light of this, my take is that jabber: is a current but very
> limited URI scheme, defining just two URIs (jabber:server and
> jabber:client) for use in XMPP streams.  No other URIs or uses for
> this scheme are sanctioned.

Actually there are more namespaces than just those two (we minted
about twenty of them in the early days of XMPP before we realized the
error of our ways). A full list can be found at -- but we haven't minted any
new ones in a long time and we're not about to start doing so again.


- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre

Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined -