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

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:23:45 -0700
Cc: "Daniel R. Tobias" <dan@tobias.name>, uri-review@ietf.org, hybi@ietf.org, uri@w3.org
Message-id: <4E34F2AF-C737-4A7D-AD9F-07AD177313BA@apple.com>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.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 GMT

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