JID parsing too strict?
brad at danga.com
Sun Jul 2 16:57:26 UTC 2006
On Sat, 1 Jul 2006, Martin Atkins wrote:
> 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