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

Re: [hybi] ws: and wss: schemes

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 19:00:02 +0200
Message-ID: <4AA14792.4020009@gmx.de>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: URI <uri@w3.org>, hybi@ietf.org, uri-review@ietf.org
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> [...] it now says:
>>
>>>    URI scheme syntax.
>>>       In ABNF terms using the terminals from the IRI specifications:
>>>       [RFC5238] [RFC3987]
>>>
>>>            "ws" ":" ihier-part [ "?" iquery ]
>> That is even worse than before, because it now uses productions from the 
>> IRI spec defining *URI* syntax.
> 
> ws: and wss: URLs are i18n-aware; why would we want to limit them to 
> ASCII?

Because that's how URI and thus URLs are defined.

>> Furthermore, it still doesn't answer what the semantics of these parts 
>> are. What do "ihier-part" and "iquery" represent in a ws URI?
> 
> This is defined by the RFC 3987, no? Surely we wouldn't want IRI 
> components to have different meanings in different schemes?

If you can point to a section in RFC 3987 which defines more than the 
syntax, and can state that that also applies to "ws", then, great...

>> What's the effect? How are they used?
> 
> This is defined earlier in the Web Socket specification.

I don't think it was when I wrote that emaol.

> 
>> PS: what does RFC5238 have to do with this?
> 
> Oops, typo. Fixed. (Meant 5234.)
> 
> 
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>> I assume you are using ABNF syntax (RFC5234) and terminology from the URI
>>>> spec, but you really need to state that.
>>> Thanks, fixed.
>>>
>>> (I tried referencing STD68 instead of RFC5234, as we do in HTML5, but
>>> apparently there's no index of STD references for xml2rfc?)
>> Just day "STD68" instead of "RFC5234" in the reference/@anchor element.
> 
> I have no <reference> elements, I'm using the <?rfc include=""?> feature 
> and reference.RFC.xxxx.xml files. I couldn't find STD reference files.

Don't use the include feature then.

>>>>>    URI scheme semantics.
>>>>>       The only operation for this scheme is to open a connection using
>>>>>       the Web Socket protocol.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Encoding considerations.
>>>>>       UTF-8 only.
>>>> What does this mean?
>>> That the only encoding that can be used with this scheme is UTF-8. What is
>>> unclear?
>> You can only have ASCII characters in a URI. I believe you're trying to do the
>> right thing, but it really requires a few more words (...when non-URL
>> characters are to be used in a ws URI, they need to be encoded using UTF-8 and
>> then percent-escaped...)
> 
> I've deferred to RFC3987 to sidestep this issue.

A URI is not a IRI.

You can refer to the mapping, but that really needs a few more words 
than "See RFC3987.".

> ...


BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 4 September 2009 17:00:52 GMT

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