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

Peter Saint-Andre <> Mon, 26 November 2012 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 431AA21F8668; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 08:03:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AnBbgTi-+nhe; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 08:03:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FA8A21F85C7; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 08:03:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C7F8C40092; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 09:08:40 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 08:28:42 -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: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] 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 16:03:52 -0000

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.
>, 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 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 Saint-Andre

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