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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 09:58:10 +0200
Message-ID: <4A7E8192.6040404@gmx.de>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, uri-review@ietf.org, uri@w3.org, hybi@ietf.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?

Are you saying the URI scheme is *only* needed within WebSocket's API? 
Why do you need a URI scheme in the first place, then?

BR, Julian
Received on Sunday, 9 August 2009 07:59:00 GMT

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