W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > August 2009

Re: [hybi] [Uri-review] ws: and wss: schemes

From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 23:34:14 +0100
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, uri-review@ietf.org, hybi@ietf.org, uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <20090808223414.GA20199@shareable.org>
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, David Booth wrote:
> >
> > This looks to me like a perfect example of a case where a new scheme is
> > not needed, as the same thing can be accomplished by defining an http
> > URI prefix, as described in "Converting New URI Schemes or URN
> > Sub-Schemes to HTTP":
> > http://dbooth.org/2006/urn2http/
> > Note that I am talking about the *scheme*, not the protocol.  In
> > essence, a URI prefix such as "http://wss.example/" can be defined that
> > would serve the same purpose as a "wss:" scheme: an agent that
> > recognizes this prefix will know to attempt the WSS protocol.  But an
> > agent that doesn't *might* still be able to fall back to doing something
> > useful with the URI if it were an http URI, whereas it couldn't if it
> > were a "wss:" URI.
> 
> This is only expected to be used from a WebSocket API call. What fallback 
> behaviour did you have in mind?

Tunnelling WebSocket two-way communications over standard HTTP
messages, using any of the methods used for that, would be natural and
probably useful behaviour.

-- Jamie
Received on Saturday, 8 August 2009 22:34:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:42 GMT