jdev - 2022-09-13

Hey all! I have two small questions about XMPP URI: 1. is `xmpp:somecomponent.example.com?message;body=stuff` a valid XMPP URI? I cannot find in the spec (but I may have missed it) if `somecomponent.example.com` is a valid recipient of if it only works with `xmpp:somebody@example.com?message;body=stuff` 2. https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0147.html#actions mentions that an adhoc command could potentially be triggered by this type of URI, but I cannot find any example of what it should look like. is it `xmpp:somebody@example.com?adhoc;fieldname1=value1&fieldname2=value2` - does any client actually implement that? ✏

Client support for advanced URI stuff is extremely limited, if it exists at all

and the answers to most questions about URIs are "we don't know"

There's an example of a message with a body here: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0147.html#example-2

Thanks for the reply. The example uses a "user@server"-type JID, but I was wondering if `component.example.com` is also valid as a recipient here. It would be nice for gateway-related stuff (no surprise). I've written a small thingy (with a .desktop file and xdg-open) that converts `irc://server/channel` to biboumi-powered MUC URIs `xmpp:#channel%server@biboumicomponent.ex.com` and it's nice. I was wondering how I could do the same for telegram's `tg://...` uris (also apply to other chat networks), and triggering an adhoc command would be great for me. A simple chat message the gateway component directly is also an option, hence my first question :)

Sure, it's just a JID, you can put a component JID there without a doubt

Will clients handle it? As I said... we don't know :)

Conversations has a prompt if you try to add a domain JID, for example

and I haven't tested, but it might just trigger that for ?message

Was asking out of curiosity for clients, but if clients don't implement it and it's in the spec, I might use it anyway. Maybe it will motivate changes in the client, who knows :)

Hopefully :)

At least it can get tested, and you/people can file reports against non-working clients

One reason it's not implemented is just that nobody uses it

Chicken and egg problem, then! thanks

The one thing that's annoying is that you kind aneed to have a place where to input these, some kind of "omni-thing", to be able to use the fully

It's great though if you can