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: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 22:52:26 -0400
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "Daniel R. Tobias" <dan@tobias.name>, uri-review@ietf.org, hybi@ietf.org, uri@w3.org
Message-Id: <1250045546.3990.1906.camel@dbooth-laptop>
On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 17:23 -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 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).

That's not a risk, that's the *intent*.  The point is that a prefix like
"http://wss.example/" gives agents that do not know the WSS protocol the
possibility of doing something useful with the URI, by falling back to
the HTTP protocol, whereas if a prefix like "wss:" were used those same
agents would have to reject it entirely.  The "http://wss.example/" URI
still retains its meaning as an http URI, but it gains *additional*
meaning as a WSS URI for those agents that know how to handle the WSS

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 Wednesday, 12 August 2009 03:10:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:13 UTC