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

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

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:05:12 -0400
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, uri-review@ietf.org, hybi@ietf.org, uri@w3.org
Message-Id: <1249869912.20315.403.camel@dbooth-laptop>
On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 23:34 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> 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.

Sounds like a good idea to me, and an excellent reason to use an http
prefix instead of a new scheme.



-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
Cleveland Clinic (contractor)

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 02:05:48 GMT

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