2005/9/25, Johannes Fröhlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I agree with Matt that it's a bummer how jids are constructed.
I do not agree. JIDs are constructed well and thoughtfully. > But my suggestion > would be to make it as consistant as possible for the user. But you are suggesting to make it inconsistent instead. More on that later. > I know that > a jid is "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". And from this view I can browse for services on > the server "server.net". > My suggestion would be to list services like "server.net/service". How is disco'ing "server.net/service" different form discoing "server.net"? > A muc-room would be "server.net/muc/room" and JIDs are not hierarchical. And putting "/" character in resource will not make them so. ;-) > a user using > this mucroom would have the jid "[EMAIL PROTECTED]/muc/room" or > just "[EMAIL PROTECTED]/room". The RFC says that the resource is a property of bare JID. In this case we are talking about bare JID of "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and its resource "muc/room". Your proposal is to create a special case with different than normal semantics. This is not a good idea IMO. -- smk
