[Bug 26866] Conn.I.Addressing etc. — requesting handles for a vCard field or URI

[bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26866

--- Comment #58 from Simon McVittie <simon.mcvittie at collabora.co.uk> 2010-09-24 04:17:41 PDT ---
Implementation issues from Bug #30296:

smcv:
> wjt:
> > ‘...using the addressing bits for
> > requests requires handle type to be omitted.’: i think that's fine. you might
> > not know up-front what handle type the URI corresponds to. You could have an
> > XMPP URI for a MUC. (I don't know if such a beast exists, the internet
> > connection here isn't working.)
> 
> I'd assumed that the scope of Addressing was limited to Handle_Type_Contact,
> although I suppose if an organization can have a vCard (which it can), then so
> can a chatroom...
> 
> If Addressing *isn't* implicitly Contact-based, then we need to include the
> handle type in the request (and amend telepathy-glib to cope) - given an XMPP
> JID or URI, I don't believe we can generally tell whether it's a contact or a
> MUC (in an ideal world, possibly we could if Google's MUC servers responded to
> disco queries).

Chan.I.Addressing.TargetURI and Chan.I.Addressing.TargetVCardAddress currently
both say "TargetHandleType must either not be present or set to
Handle_Type_Contact". The former works, the latter needs telepathy-glib changes
but I think we should support it anyway. We'll need to change that spec text if
we want to support addressing non-contacts by vCard field or URI.

The only other handle type we currently have is Handle_Type_Room. Does anyone
feel strongly that we should or shouldn't support requesting chatrooms by URI
or vCard field?

Overview of a few protocols with URI schemes and chatrooms
----------------------------------------------------------

XMPP

xmpp:smcv at example.com is a contact. xmpp:smcvsfriends at conference.example.com is
a MUC (room). We obviously can't tell this syntactically; if all servers were
perfect, we might be able to disco them both and find out which was which, but
that requires round-trips, and Google MUC servers don't reply to disco anyway.

IRC

It appears we *can* tell syntactically, via ",isnick".
There is no RFC. References include
<http://www.w3.org/Addressing/draft-mirashi-url-irc-01.txt>,
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-butcher-irc-url-04>,
<http://www.mozilla.org/projects/rt-messaging/chatzilla/irc-urls.html>,
<http://about.psyc.eu/IRC_URI>
irc://irc.freenode.net/telepathy is a room, #telepathy. So is
irc://irc.freenode.net/%23telepathy (#telepathy, URI-encoded).
irc://irc.freenode.net/smcv,isnick is a contact, smcv (despite comma not being
valid in URIs...)
The Mozilla page seems to suggest that irc://irc.freenode.net/smcv would also
be a valid way to describe the contact smcv, but I can't see how that would
ever be useful - in practice the client would have to guess wildly and join
#smcv instead.

MSN, Skype

Chatrooms don't have user-visible names so there's nothing useful to put in a
URI.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.