Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
On Dimecres 27 Juny 2007, Matthias Wimmer wrote: (Don't know how I created They one to have.) I think you meant They want to have, which sounds similar when you speak the sentence mentally before typing it ;) -- David signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
Dnia 27-06-2007, śro o godzinie 15:34 +0400, Sergei Golovan napisał(a): I didn't see any XMPP client, which requires to enter node and server separately in send message dialogs (I did see clients which asks for chatroom names). Just because others had teken the easy path (for developer, not the user), doesn't mean you should also. In general, I can show unescaped JID. But what's the idea of XEP-0106 then? To allow inserting characters disallowed by RFC into JID parts and transfer them on the wire. Unfortunately, it means that to be able to send message to such a strange JID the user has to khow how to escape it. Should users read XEPs? :) No. Machines (for example your application) should do the escaping. Maybe if you could explain the use-case which you need the escaping for, we could find a reasonable solution for your application. -- Tomasz Sterna Xiaoka Grp. http://www.xiaoka.com/
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
Dnia 27-06-2007, śro o godzinie 12:53 +0400, Sergei Golovan napisał(a): Could someone clarify how to escape the following JID (and to split it into node, server and resource)? [EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource This is not a JID. (in other words: this is invalid JID) There is no way of telling which part is a node, domain, resource. You need to escape it FIRST (using XEP-0106) to be a valid JID before trying to parse/split it. -- Tomasz Sterna Xiaoka Grp. http://www.xiaoka.com/
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
On 6/27/07, Tomasz Sterna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dnia 27-06-2007, śro o godzinie 12:53 +0400, Sergei Golovan napisał(a): Could someone clarify how to escape the following JID (and to split it into node, server and resource)? [EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource This is not a JID. (in other words: this is invalid JID) There is no way of telling which part is a node, domain, resource. You need to escape it FIRST (using XEP-0106) to be a valid JID before trying to parse/split it. You're right. And the question is: How to escape it? Can escaping be done unambiguously? The problem is that if I get alredy escaped JID [EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource then I can unescape it and show to a user as [EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource. But what to do if a user enters such a JID into a client entry box and wants to send a message to it? Best wishes! -- Sergei Golovan
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
On 6/27/07, Sergei Golovan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're right. And the question is: How to escape it? Can escaping be done unambiguously? Yes, but only if you already know the split. The problem is that if I get alredy escaped JID [EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource then I can unescape it and show to a user as [EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource. But what to do if a user enters such a JID into a client entry box and wants to send a message to it? You have to provider two entry boxes, or require the the user enter a pre-escaped jid, and reject the ambiguous jid. -- - Norman Rasmussen - Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Home page: http://norman.rasmussen.co.za/
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
Dnia 27-06-2007, śro o godzinie 15:03 +0400, Sergei Golovan napisał(a): You're right. And the question is: How to escape it? Can escaping be done unambiguously? Yes. You have a node, domain and resource which you need to escape before concatenating them into JID. The problem is that if I get alredy escaped JID [EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource then I can unescape it and show to a user as [EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource. Well... You shouldn't show such a monstrosity to a user. Use the JID parts wisely. Show username, domain eventually resource. But what to do if a user enters such a JID into a client entry box and wants to send a message to it? It's an invalid entry and you should return an error to the user. You've asked for a JID and the text entered isn't a valid JID. There is no way of telling which part is what without some external information. -- Tomasz Sterna Xiaoka Grp. http://www.xiaoka.com/
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
Hi Tomasz! Tomasz Sterna schrieb: Dnia 27-06-2007, śro o godzinie 12:53 +0400, Sergei Golovan napisał(a): Could someone clarify how to escape the following JID (and to split it into node, server and resource)? [EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource This is not a JID. (in other words: this is invalid JID) It is a valid JID. Node: user Domain: jabber.org Resource: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource The resource is allowed to contain '@' as well as '/'. Everything behind the first '/' character in a JID is the resource. Matthias -- Matthias Wimmer Fon +49-700 77 00 77 70 Züricher Str. 243Fax +49-89 95 89 91 56 81476 Münchenhttp://ma.tthias.eu/
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
Matthias Wimmer schrieb: The resource is allowed to contain '@' as well as '/'. Everything behind the first '/' character in a JID is the resource. ... but this has nothing to do with XEP-0106 BTW. XEP-0106 is about mapping non-JID addresses in a JID. e.g. if you have a E-Mail address, that cannot map directly in a JID you will use XEP-0106. Matthias -- Matthias Wimmer Fon +49-700 77 00 77 70 Züricher Str. 243Fax +49-89 95 89 91 56 81476 Münchenhttp://ma.tthias.eu/
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
On 6/27/07, Norman Rasmussen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/27/07, Sergei Golovan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're right. And the question is: How to escape it? Can escaping be done unambiguously? Yes, but only if you already know the split. So, a full unsecaped JID (with resource) can't be split unambiguously. Then I'm afraid we should do something with the XEP. The problem is that if I get alredy escaped JID [EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource then I can unescape it and show to a user as [EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource. But what to do if a user enters such a JID into a client entry box and wants to send a message to it? You have to provider two entry boxes, or require the the user enter a pre-escaped jid, and reject the ambiguous jid. There is another problem here. If the user receives message from [EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource I can't unescape JID because he will not know if the message came from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Using two entry boxes is not good IMHO. It breaks the idea of JID - the only user identifier in XMPP world. -- Sergei Golovan
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
On 6/27/07, Matthias Wimmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthias Wimmer schrieb: The resource is allowed to contain '@' as well as '/'. Everything behind the first '/' character in a JID is the resource. ... but this has nothing to do with XEP-0106 BTW. XEP-0106 is about mapping non-JID addresses in a JID. e.g. if you have a E-Mail address, that cannot map directly in a JID you will use XEP-0106. As far as I understand, XEP-0106 is also about visual representation of JID. And I think that if two different JIDs have one visual representation then it's bad. -- Sergei Golovan
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
Hi Sergei! Ah okay ... it seems I start understanding what you are trying to do. You want to map a JID (or something like that) into another JID, e.g. for building the infamous Jabber-Jabber transport. Sergei Golovan schrieb: So, a full unsecaped JID (with resource) can't be split unambiguously. Then I'm afraid we should do something with the XEP. You will always only handle escaped JIDs when splitting the JID. If you do unescape the JID, you should do this to get back the mapped address. E.g. if you unescape [EMAIL PROTECTED] you do not get back [EMAIL PROTECTED] and not [EMAIL PROTECTED]@jabber.org. Compare this with the escaping in XML: If you map elementthis is XML/element in an XHTML document you get: plt;elementgt;this is XMLlt;/elementgt;/p You will also only be able to unescape the content of the p/ element without creating a mess. If you would just unescape everything you would get pelementthis is XML/element/p and with that also no XML parser could understand what of this is your XHTML and what is your XML document you wrapped. Matthias -- Matthias Wimmer Fon +49-700 77 00 77 70 Züricher Str. 243Fax +49-89 95 89 91 56 81476 Münchenhttp://ma.tthias.eu/
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
On 6/27/07, Tomasz Sterna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dnia 27-06-2007, śro o godzinie 15:03 +0400, Sergei Golovan napisał(a): You're right. And the question is: How to escape it? Can escaping be done unambiguously? Yes. You have a node, domain and resource which you need to escape before concatenating them into JID. I didn't see any XMPP client, which requires to enter node and server separately in send message dialogs (I did see clients which asks for chatroom names). The problem is that if I get alredy escaped JID [EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource then I can unescape it and show to a user as [EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource. Well... You shouldn't show such a monstrosity to a user. Use the JID parts wisely. Show username, domain eventually resource. In general, I can show unescaped JID. But what's the idea of XEP-0106 then? But what to do if a user enters such a JID into a client entry box and wants to send a message to it? It's an invalid entry and you should return an error to the user. You've asked for a JID and the text entered isn't a valid JID. There is no way of telling which part is what without some external information. Unfortunately, it means that to be able to send message to such a strange JID the user has to khow how to escape it. Should users read XEPs? :) -- Sergei Golovan
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
Hi Sergei! Sergei Golovan schrieb: I didn't see any XMPP client, which requires to enter node and server separately in send message dialogs (I did see clients which asks for chatroom names). In address fields you will only enter escaped JIDs. But you could for example use a Jabber service (e.g. an SMTP transport) where you send an e-mail address to and you get back the mapped e-mail address as an escaped JID. This is what to old jabber:iq:gateway protocol did and what can now be done with data forms. Matthias -- Matthias Wimmer Fon +49-700 77 00 77 70 Züricher Str. 243Fax +49-89 95 89 91 56 81476 Münchenhttp://ma.tthias.eu/
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
On 6/27/07, Matthias Wimmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Sergei! Ah okay ... it seems I start understanding what you are trying to do. You want to map a JID (or something like that) into another JID, e.g. for building the infamous Jabber-Jabber transport. Not exactly. I want to implement XEP-0106 in Tkabber and the idea was to show only unescaped JIDs to a user. But since different escaped (real) JIDs map to one escaped JID then it's impossible (user should definitely know who sent the message). My current yhought is the following: to show unescaped JID if and only if it can be escaped unambiguously. But this approach isn't good too (appending different resources we may break unescaping of any bare JID). So, probably I will not unescape / and @ in nodes. It should solve ambuguity. Or may be hiding real (escaped) JIDs from the user is a bad idea at all? Best wishes! -- Sergei Golovan
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
HI Sergei! Sergei Golovan schrieb: Or may be hiding real (escaped) JIDs from the user is a bad idea at all? In fields where a general JID is expected, I'd say you should display the full (escaped) JID. - As only this one is a JID. The whole fuzz about escaping is just to make something a JID, that wouldn't be one else. So if you need a JID you will always display the result of the escaping. IMO you only do unescaping, if you want to display something that is not a JID but the original address. And you should only do this on places where the user is aware about the fact, that he does not see a JID, but an other address. Matthias -- Matthias Wimmer Fon +49-700 77 00 77 70 Züricher Str. 243Fax +49-89 95 89 91 56 81476 Münchenhttp://ma.tthias.eu/
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
On 6/27/07, Matthias Wimmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: HI Sergei! Sergei Golovan schrieb: Or may be hiding real (escaped) JIDs from the user is a bad idea at all? In fields where a general JID is expected, I'd say you should display the full (escaped) JID. - As only this one is a JID. The whole fuzz about escaping is just to make something a JID, that wouldn't be one else. So if you need a JID you will always display the result of the escaping. IMO you only do unescaping, if you want to display something that is not a JID but the original address. And you should only do this on places where the user is aware about the fact, that he does not see a JID, but an other address. I see. Table 3 in section 5.1 confused me a bit (especially column User Input). So, if I want to show unescaped JID it's better to show only a node (if it's appropriate). It seems to be too complicated. Thanks anyway. -- Sergei Golovan
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
Sergei Golovan wrote: On 6/27/07, Norman Rasmussen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/27/07, Sergei Golovan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're right. And the question is: How to escape it? Can escaping be done unambiguously? Yes, but only if you already know the split. So, a full unsecaped JID (with resource) can't be split unambiguously. Then I'm afraid we should do something with the XEP. I think you are confused about the intent about the xep here. The xep allows you to encode unallowed characters such that they can be used as part of the jid. You decode after splitting the jid into its constituents, not before. So, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a valid jid, while [EMAIL PROTECTED]@sun.com makes no sense - and intent of the xep is not to make any sense of it. You take the node (mridul\40test.com), and then decode it for your purpose ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - not as part of the jid. The problem is that if I get alredy escaped JID [EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource then I can unescape it and show to a user as [EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource. But what to do if a user enters such a JID into a client entry box and wants to send a message to it? You have to provider two entry boxes, or require the the user enter a pre-escaped jid, and reject the ambiguous jid. There is another problem here. If the user receives message from [EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource I can't unescape JID because he will not know if the message came from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Using two entry boxes is not good IMHO. It breaks the idea of JID - the only user identifier in XMPP world. Why would you want to unescape it ? The identifier of the contact is user\40jabber.org\2fuser in xmpp world. The node by itself conveys no meaning other than when associated with the full jid. Regards, Mridul
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
Sergei Golovan wrote: On 6/27/07, Matthias Wimmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matthias Wimmer schrieb: The resource is allowed to contain '@' as well as '/'. Everything behind the first '/' character in a JID is the resource. ... but this has nothing to do with XEP-0106 BTW. XEP-0106 is about mapping non-JID addresses in a JID. e.g. if you have a E-Mail address, that cannot map directly in a JID you will use XEP-0106. As far as I understand, XEP-0106 is also about visual representation of JID. And I think that if two different JIDs have one visual representation then it's bad. It is not about visual representation. xep 106 is about encoding pieces of the jid such that they are compliant with xmpp requirements in a standard way. Mridul
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
On 6/27/07, Mridul Muralidharan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is not about visual representation. xep 106 is about encoding pieces of the jid such that they are compliant with xmpp requirements in a standard way. Then I would like to ask who should escape JIDs and when? I don't think that users will read XEP and escape desired characters. One possible question is: user's client during registration process. And user will be surprised looking at his new brand escaped JID. -- Sergei Golovan
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
On 6/27/07, Mridul Muralidharan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why would you want to unescape it ? The identifier of the contact is user\40jabber.org\2fuser in xmpp world. The node by itself conveys no meaning other than when associated with the full jid. Citing XEP-0106: Typically, unescaping is performed only by a client that wants to display JIDs containing escaped characters to a human user, or by a gateway to some external system (e.g., email or LDAP) that needs to generate identifiers for foreign systems. The second purpose is clear, but the first (display to a human user) is not so clear for me now. -- Sergei Golovan
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
Hello On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 01:11:03PM +0200, Norman Rasmussen wrote: On 6/27/07, Sergei Golovan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're right. And the question is: How to escape it? Can escaping be done unambiguously? Yes, but only if you already know the split. Is there a way the server part could contain @? I hope a domain name can't contain it. I would take the last @ as the actual separator and leave all the before as just part of the node (same as with email, where you can have address like @@host.com, where the local name on host is really @). Do you think there may be a problem with this approach? -- Wait few minutes before opening this email. The temperature difference could lead to vapour condensation. Michal 'vorner' Vaner pgpMHChIspdIz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
On 6/27/07, Matthias Wimmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The same way XEP-0106 is not about allowing nice new characters and displaying them animated in high color and blinking. It is just for the case a character has to be transported and cannot be used directly. Any use of escaping should be avoided when possible, you only do it if you have to. I would say that the introduction of the XEP clearly says that it IS about allowing nice new characters. -- Sergei Golovan
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
On 6/27/07, Michal 'vorner' Vaner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 01:11:03PM +0200, Norman Rasmussen wrote: On 6/27/07, Sergei Golovan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're right. And the question is: How to escape it? Can escaping be done unambiguously? Yes, but only if you already know the split. Is there a way the server part could contain @? I hope a domain name can't contain it. I would take the last @ as the actual separator and leave all the before as just part of the node (same as with email, where you can have address like @@host.com, where the local name on host is really @). The last @ may be in a resource part. Do you think there may be a problem with this approach? Valig JIDs are always split into three parts unambiguously. As far as I thought, XEP-0106 purpose is to allow invalid JIDs to be shown to a user (hiding real complicated escaped JID). But it seems to fail in this. So, let this XEP serve another goal - interoperability between XMPP network and the others. -- Sergei Golovan
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
Sergei Golovan schrieb: I would say that the introduction of the XEP clearly says that it IS about allowing nice new characters. I don't read it that way. I read it: They one to have O'Hara as their username in the account backend (e.g. the LDAP server) and they may for example log in to the website as O'Hara then. But with that username, their JID will then be [EMAIL PROTECTED]. And as long as you display a JID you will display [EMAIL PROTECTED]. But if you only present the username, than you may present o'hara again (but this username then does not contain the @example.com part). Matthias
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
Matthias Wimmer schrieb: They one to have O'Hara as their username in the account backend (e.g. Please read this as: If one wants to have ... (Don't know how I created They one to have.) Matthias
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
Hi Sergei! Sergei Golovan schrieb: Then I would like to ask who should escape JIDs and when? I don't think that users will read XEP and escape desired characters. Well escaping will mostly be done by transports. Consider the case of the well known msn transport: MSN has addresses of the form [EMAIL PROTECTED] as well. So the transport when it maps this address to a Jabber ID it has to do something with the @ sign in this address. Traditional transports did map it to the % character. While a transport using XEP-0106 would map it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Clients will normally not unescape this address when displaying it. It would only be unescaped by the client, if this client would have a different interface for MSN messaging (a multi-IM like GUI hiding the details that all is routed over the Jabber network for example), where it will then just display the [EMAIL PROTECTED] again. But no Jabber client always tried to display the JIDs generated by the msn transport as [EMAIL PROTECTED]@msn.example.com. One possible question is: user's client during registration process. And user will be surprised looking at his new brand escaped JID. Why would a client do escaping during registration? It should just not allow the user to enter characters not allowed in the node part of a JID when asking it which account it wants to create. Remember that this XEP is not made to allow new characters to be used in user names, but to define a possible way to map addresses, that cannot be mapped directly. I gave you one example with XML, another one is in URLs when you add parameter values to it (http GET request). http://example.com/script.php?param=user%40domain You would also not expect your web browser to display this unescaped in the address line. This escaping is just there to be able to transport the @ character in value of a request. The same way XEP-0106 is not about allowing nice new characters and displaying them animated in high color and blinking. It is just for the case a character has to be transported and cannot be used directly. Any use of escaping should be avoided when possible, you only do it if you have to. Matthias
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
On 6/27/07, Matthias Wimmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sergei Golovan schrieb: I would say that the introduction of the XEP clearly says that it IS about allowing nice new characters. I don't read it that way. I read it: And how should one read: The escaped JID is unescaped only for presentation to a human user (typically by an XMPP client)? Probably the XEP needs some clarification. I think that your interpretation is more reasonable than in the XEP text. -- Sergei Golovan
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
Hi Sergei! Sergei Golovan schrieb: And how should one read: The escaped JID is unescaped only for presentation to a human user (typically by an XMPP client)? As I explained in one of my last e-mails: someone might want to implement a Jabber client that has an interface like Pidgin but that does only XMPP serverside. So the client knows that something arriving from [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a MSN messenger message. It opens a MSN style window and only presents [EMAIL PROTECTED] as the sender address. And it knows always when the user sends a message out of a MSN message window, it has to send back the message to the transport instead of to [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Matthias
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
On 6/27/07, Matthias Wimmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Sergei! Sergei Golovan schrieb: And how should one read: The escaped JID is unescaped only for presentation to a human user (typically by an XMPP client)? As I explained in one of my last e-mails: someone might want to implement a Jabber client that has an interface like Pidgin but that does only XMPP serverside. In this case the client don't want to have unescaped full JID. It only needs unescaped node. The XEP is perfectly suitable for this. But it is full of examples of unescaped full JIDs (in fact bare JIDs). It is confusing. -- Sergei Golovan
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
Sergei Golovan wrote: On 6/27/07, Mridul Muralidharan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is not about visual representation. xep 106 is about encoding pieces of the jid such that they are compliant with xmpp requirements in a standard way. Then I would like to ask who should escape JIDs and when? I don't think that users will read XEP and escape desired characters. One possible question is: user's client during registration process. And user will be surprised looking at his new brand escaped JID. Hi, There are deployments where uid's are standardized - like using email id. So the user id is [EMAIL PROTECTED], and the full jid would be [EMAIL PROTECTED] The client would take in [EMAIL PROTECTED] as userid, imdomain as the xmpp domain and then construct the jid appropriately (using the xep specified encoding). At the server, it would retrieve the individual parts, unescape each and uniquely identify the uid to be used for that user in that xmpp domain (property store, authentication, etc). I am just giving a possible usecase (albeit something which is supported by us for example) - you can come up with many others too. In the above example, if the user wants to put his JID in his business card, he will need to specify [EMAIL PROTECTED] - since that is his xmpp jid to which he is accessible at (if imdomain is a federated server for example) - just like he would put [EMAIL PROTECTED] as his email. Hope this clarifies and also gives one usecase of how escaping and unescaping are required. Regards, Mridul
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
Sergei Golovan wrote: Hi! Could someone clarify how to escape the following JID (and to split it into node, server and resource)? [EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource Why are you showing full JIDs to users? What is the use case for showing this? I could do it in two ways: 1) user jabber.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]/resource 2) user\40jabber.org\27user jabber.org resource XEP-0106 doesn't give an exact way of escaping such a JID. And if 1) or 2) is preferrable then there's no way (or it's not easy) to send a message to another JID. Use bare JIDs? smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
Sergei Golovan wrote: On 6/27/07, Matthias Wimmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Sergei! Ah okay ... it seems I start understanding what you are trying to do. You want to map a JID (or something like that) into another JID, e.g. for building the infamous Jabber-Jabber transport. Not exactly. I want to implement XEP-0106 in Tkabber and the idea was to show only unescaped JIDs to a user. But since different escaped (real) JIDs map to one escaped JID then it's impossible (user should definitely know who sent the message). My current yhought is the following: to show unescaped JID if and only if it can be escaped unambiguously. But this approach isn't good too (appending different resources we may break unescaping of any bare JID). So, probably I will not unescape / and @ in nodes. It should solve ambuguity. Sure, try that out and see how it goes. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre XMPP Standards Foundation http://www.xmpp.org/xsf/people/stpeter.shtml smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [jdev] Escaping JID using XEP-0106
Matthias Wimmer wrote: Matthias Wimmer schrieb: The resource is allowed to contain '@' as well as '/'. Everything behind the first '/' character in a JID is the resource. ... but this has nothing to do with XEP-0106 BTW. XEP-0106 is about mapping non-JID addresses in a JID. e.g. if you have a E-Mail address, that cannot map directly in a JID you will use XEP-0106. Basically, yes. The idea for native XMPP addresses is that people might want them to look the same as their email addresses. So if your email address is d'[EMAIL PROTECTED] then you might want your JID to look the same. But we can't do that natively in XMPP because single quote is not allowed in a node identifier, so we need an escaping mechanism, which is XEP-0106. So a JID of [EMAIL PROTECTED] would be presented as d'[EMAIL PROTECTED] even in a pure XMPP system. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre XMPP Standards Foundation http://www.xmpp.org/xsf/people/stpeter.shtml smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
