JID parsing too strict?

Martin Atkins mart at degeneration.co.uk
Sat Jul 1 17:10:17 UTC 2006

Manuzhai wrote:
>> For want of any better specification on this (anyone know where the
>> *real* spec for JIDs lives?) it seems like a good idea to go ahead and
>> support this grammar, since DJabberd's current regex isn't supporting
>> some JIDs currently out in the wild.
> Isn't RFC 3920, appendix A (and B for resources) the *real* spec on this?
> http://www.xmpp.org/specs/rfc3920.html#nodeprep


It's no wonder people just make this stuff up if *that* is the spec. 
Just a bit list of references to a bunch of tables in a completely 
different spec, which itself just contains huge, unreadable lists of 
unicode codepoints.

Have these people never heard of EBNF?

My vote would just be for going with the EBNF from the retracted JEP, 
since there doesn't seem to be anything wacky in there and it's a whole 
lot easier to translate into a regex.

More information about the Djabberd mailing list