Last modified: 2011-03-13 18:04:37 UTC
There are uri's which become clickable, such as; irc, mailto, http, etc... xmpp
uri's should be added to the list.
Created attachment 697 [details]
add xmpp to list of uri
This patch adds xmpp to the list of uri's which are rendered as an external
*** Bug 2808 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
As per bug 431, this is now possible within the Local configuration file
(LocalSettings.php), so in a sense this is "fixed".
If you think this protocol would be useful within Wikipedia or some other
Wikimedia project, please reopen this bug, change the "Product" to "Wikimedia
websites", and explain why you think Wikimedia projects should be configured to
allow such URLs.
I think it should be enabled because it's useful if one can directly link to
Jabber services in related articles, e. g. to jabber.org/echo at the Wikipedia
entry for Jabber. And it's useful for the personal pages of the users, enabling
them to publish their JID in a more usable way.
See bug 3133, comment 5 for a set of criteria I think need considering before
adding a new link-prefix to the configuration (maybe I should put that somewhere
more permanent, such as on meta:); in particular, consider criterion 1: "is this
URI scheme widely supported in the software used by readers?" My hunch is that
this is implemented in a vanishingly small number of browsers - perhaps those
with an extension installed offering an integrated Jabber client might accept
it, but otherwise, it will only be useful in IM programs, which won't in turn be
accessing Wikimedia (or any MediaWiki) content in order to display such links.
While it is true that no browser currently supports the xmpp: uri spec, it is at
least easy to hack support for it into firefox. see
http://blogs.openaether.org/?p=30 I would also expect that it is just as easy
to add support to the other browsers as well.
xmpp is quickly becoming the defacto IM protocol, so adding support for it makes
sense. Besides, xmpp is an open internet standard, and mediawiki is all about
(In reply to comment #6)
> While it is true that no browser currently supports the xmpp: uri spec, it is at
> least easy to hack support for it into firefox. see
> http://blogs.openaether.org/?p=30 I would also expect that it is just as easy
> to add support to the other browsers as well.
Well, that's true of any URI scheme you might want to add; but before enabling a
particular prefix on Wikimedia projects, it should actually be *useful* - in my
opinion, it's not really useful to have links that *would* work if you happened
to have a very non-standard piece of software installed, that may or may not
even exist yet. If (or when?) these links become supported, out of the box, by
loads of IM clients - in the way that, say, irc: is - then I will certainly
agree that criterion 1 has been met.
> xmpp is quickly becoming the defacto IM protocol, so adding support for it makes
> sense. Besides, xmpp is an open internet standard ...
Well, we're talking about Wikimedia websites here, not MediaWiki the software
(unless you think it should be enabled *per default*), but I don't see how being
"open" and/or a "de facto standard" influences whether or not a particular
feature is *useful* in either case. If we were to support any kind of clicky
links for IM conversations, xmpp: would certainly be one of the first to
consider [the unregistered but common "aim:" might also have a case], but if we
broaden criterion 3 to "are there likely to be situations in the project where
links to IM resources would be useful?", I'm not convinced that there will be
all that many. Maybe as XMPP becomes more widely used, and used in a wider
variety of contexts, this might become like listing a mailto: or irc: link, but
I think it's significant that the only examples you've given so far are on
articles about XMPP-related topics, which are naturally something of an
> ... and mediawiki is all about being open.
Neither MediaWiki nor Wikimedia are about being open for the sake of being open,
they are about *achieving specific goals* in an open way. For instance,
[[en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not]] states that "Wikipedia is not a propoganda
machine" - it wouldn't be appropriate to advocate XMPP just because it's open,
or to go round adding xmpp: links "because we can"; it would only be appropriate
if relevant external links happened to take that form, and I don't think they
(In reply to comment #7)
Hm, not "if" and "when". Such uri's do work for a pretty long time already since under Windows
there is no need to do any special browser reconfiguration — it's enough to install jabber
client with xmpp: uri support, miranda for example. And yep, it seems XMPP becomes more widely
used.. especially if counting that Google have started own XMPP-based server ;-)
(In reply to comment #8)
> Hm, not "if" and "when". Such uri's do work for a pretty long time already
since under Windows
> there is no need to do any special browser reconfiguration — it's enough to
> client with xmpp: uri support, miranda for example.
OK, I wasn't aware that clients were already shipping with browser integration
support like this; but, although I can't find a reference to this feature, I'll
take your word that it exists, and agree that criterion 1 may be at least on the
way to being met. I'm still unconvinced about criterion 3 though - where on a
Wikimedia project would you expect to add an XMPP URI, however widely used the
protocol itself is?
Meanwhile, I've written up [[meta:URI schemes]] with my suggested criteria and
some other stuff.
First off "xmpp:" would be far more useful than "gopher:".
Second, most likely they'll be used to contact people or maybe a service. It's
like asking where will "mailto:" be used. So think for a moment.
(In reply to comment #10)
> First off "xmpp:" would be far more useful than "gopher:".
Personally, I would probably be in favour of dropping "gopher:" from the default
settings, seeing as it is extremely poorly supported in current browsers. But
maybe I'm being too picky, and it doesn't really matter having prefixes in there
that will never/rarely be used, I dunno.
Well, this patch didn't come out of a vacuum. It was needed by two wikis that I manage. Its useful as a means of contacting editors and sysops. Plus, you can put links to public conference rooms for further discussion in realtime of a page/idea/etc.... xmpp: has the same benefit as irc:
I can understand the reluctance to add schemas adhoc, but xmpp is very widely used and easily integrated into web sites. And there are no IP restrictions attached to the technology, unlike aim, msn, etc..
(In reply to comment #12)
> Well, this patch didn't come out of a vacuum. It was needed by two wikis that
Just to clarify this once again, as of version 1.5, you do not need to edit the
code to add new external link preferences, you can just set $wgUrlPrefixes in
LocalSettings.php (this was bug 431). So it's only necessary to even *discuss*
this here if you want to a) enable it by default for new installations or b)
enable it on the Wikimedia projects. The fact that it was needed by two wikis
which you run is therefore close to (though perhaps not completely) irrelevant.
So this should be pretty easy to add then?
(In reply to comment #14)
> So this should be pretty easy to add then?
Yes. Extremely easy. As I have said at least twice, this is now a configuration
option. None of the main code has to be changed at all. The issue under
discussion is whether xmpp: should be included by default, and/or whether it
should be included on Wikimedia websites.
In my opinion, it's not sensible to include any and every possible prefix - see
my example of what that could look like on [[meta:URI schemes]] - even though it
would be perfectly *easy* to do so; that's why the configuration option is
*there*, so wiki maintainers can make their own choices.
So … will it be added?
Discussion from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)
The important is xmpp URIs (notifications is in second point)
Can you ask with Wikimedia people like Jimmy Wales ?
Thanks in advance, regards, Neustradamus.
== Add Jabber XMPP option like IRC ==
I propose to improve Wikipedia to support also XMPP URIs.
[[en:Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol|Jabber/XMPP]] is a open source protocol used by a lot of people all over the world. There are users of Google Talk, Gizmo5, LiveJournal, Nimbuzz, Ovi, Jabber.org and a lot of other servers
... and there are a lot of XMPP clients
XMPP URI (xmpp:) is similar to mailto: and irc: (more information on [[en:URI scheme]])
So, today, for contact a person/join a chan on Wikipedia:
* It is possible to put a link to a user address with this format: [mailto:<user>@<host>]
* It is possible to put a link to join a chan: [irc://irc.freenode.net/wikipedia]
With XMPP URIs :
* It is possible to put a link to a user address with this format:
* It is possible to put a link to join a room (XMPP chan):
There are three requests: URI Scheme for contact link/join room and Wikipedia Notifications.
For more informations:
* RFC 5122
* XEP-0045 on [http://xmpp.org/ XMPP Standards Foundation, XSF] (formely Jabber Software Foundation, JSF)
* XMPP URIs on official XMPP wiki
* Etension:ExtendAnchorTags on MediaWiki.org
* Extension:Multi-protocol notification on MediaWiki.org
* Intégrer Jabber dans Wordpress et mediawiki
— [[en:User:Neustradamus|Neustradamus]] (<big>[[en:User talk:Neustradamus|<span style="color: black">✉</span>]]</big>) 14:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be a proposal to allow a user to receive notifications when specific wikipedia article have been updated through XMPP. It seems like a good idea. [[en:User:Millueradfa|Millueradfa]] ([[en:User talk:Millueradfa|talk]]) 23:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
:It's already possible to subscribe to an RSS feed of a page's changes. There's no need to go for another protocol; and it would involve a change to the back-end anyway, so this would have to be submitted through the bug system. — <b>[[en:User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You]]</span>:<sup>[[en:User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 17:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
:: Notifications is in second point, but about XMPP URIs ? — [[en:User:Neustradamus|Neustradamus]] (<big>[[en:User talk:Neustradamus|<span style="color: black">✉</span>]]</big>) 21:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
::: People can you speak about my proposal ? Thanks in advance, regards — [[en:User:Neustradamus|Neustradamus]] (<big>[[en:User talk:Neustradamus|<span style="color: black">✉</span>]]</big>) 20:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
::::I'd say the silence speaks volumes. It's not a very useful addition for most people, and it would require the programmers to do a lot of work behind the scenes. — <b>[[en:User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You]]</span>:<sup>[[en:User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 17:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
:::::What work are you talking about? All modern OS and DE like MacOSX, KDE, Gnome have internal support for uri types. If you are talking about wikipedia developers, so it's their work to make modern hi-tech encyclopedia. By the way, Jabber nowaday is the most popular open im protocol, even more popular than IRC, it should be noticed. [[en:User:EuroElessar|Nigmatullin Ruslan]] ([[en:User talk:EuroElessar|talk]]) 22:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
And that discussion shows that there is no consensus nor interest in this proposal. Please don't reopen unless you have a real community approval.
You do not want to debate ?
Why you accept http / https / ftp / irc / gopher / news / mailto and why not xmpp ?
XMPP is an open protocol standardized. There are RFC...
Strange answer of one people...
For the reasons why this has not been added, please read the earlier comments.
The fact that it is an open protocol, and that RFCs exist, has been covered, and does not answer why the ability to *create links to that protocol* is necessary for Wikimedia websites.
We still do not have any examples of where such links would benefit the Wikimedia projects other than for users to add additional contact details to their profiles, or possibly to publicise group discussions, although IRC is a much more common medium for these, and there doesn't seem to be much support for adding it.