- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:23:45 -0700
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: "Daniel R. Tobias" <dan@tobias.name>, uri-review@ietf.org, hybi@ietf.org, uri@w3.org
On Aug 9, 2009, at 6:52 PM, David Booth wrote: > On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 21:30 -0400, Daniel R. Tobias wrote: >> On 7 Aug 2009 at 9:16, David Booth wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> It seems like a bad idea to me, to have to build special exceptions >> to how a user agent processes URIs, where the protocol specified in >> the URI isn't actually the one that is used, based on "magic strings" >> within other parts than the scheme. > > I can't see that as a significant issue, as there is only a trivial > difference between dispatching based on the string prefix > "http://wss.example/" and the string prefix "wss:". Both are simple, > constant strings and both are equally "magic": they cause agent to > attempt the WSS protocol. The difference is that "http://wss.example/" already has a meaning, which is not the intended one. Whereas "wss:" currently has no meaning. Thus the former has greater risk of either colliding with an existing resource, or being misinterpreted by a legacy client (instead of just rejected). Regards, Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2009 00:24:26 UTC