jdev - 2023-09-17

if we add a xmpp address to a website clickable as link, does this need to be in URI or IRI form? or does it only depend on the applications you expect to send this IRI/URI to

ever URI is a valid IRI, so the question is just, if we can spare that one mapping step to URI

further i think i found a error in the spec

IRI spec says "ikey" and "iquerytype" must be iunreserved

but the URI scheme in the same spec defines it as ( unreserved / pct-encoded )

which in my opinion would violate the rule from https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3987#section-3.1

> Every URI is by definition an IRI.

hm it does not exactly violate the rule, but it makes it impossible to convert the URI back to a IRI

> However, the IRI resulting from this conversion may not be exactly the same as the original IRI (if there ever was one).

Oo

hm no i was confused, it just means iunreserved contains unicodechars, so they have to be percent encoded in the URI form

hm no, % is not in unreserved, it is not allowed as key in a IRI, so a URI which encodes something there is not an IRI anymore and violates the rule

Yes for clickable links definitely want URI form which implies escaping some stuff

why?

> URIs identify resources in various ways. IRIs also identify resources. When the IRI is used solely for identification purposes, it is not necessary to map the IRI to a URI

whatever a identification purpose is, but i would argue you cant do anything with a URI in xmpp, you need to convert it back to a JID. Makes less sense for me to add an additional conversion URI -> IRI -> JID

How would you make a link that isn't a URI?

xmpp:jiři@čechy.example

this is a valid IRI, but not a valid URI

IRI is simply URI without escaping a certain range of unicode chars

IRI = Internationalized-URI or so

URN, IRI, URI, URL.... not confusing at all! :)

As XMPP supports a wide range of unicode chars in addresses, of course using the IRI form is better, URI is simply ugly in this case

so thats why i was wondering, if you make a link on a homepage, what will the browser do with a xmpp scheme link? it will pass it to a xmpp application defined in the browser

of course a xmpp application can handle a IRI, because its impossible to be able to handle URIs but not IRIs

the only thing i could imagine is the browser doing it self some network operation where the unicode characters in a IRI would not be allowed

but im not aware of any such usecase

I imagine the thing to worry about is whether intermediate things handle unicode correctly. These days, I would expect so. Decade ago, maybe less so.

I mean things like protocol dispatcher whatever in the OS

lovetox: oh, you're just asking if it's fine to use iri form? That seems probably fine in most cases

Hii