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

Re: [hybi] ws: and wss: schemes

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 20:19:47 +0000 (UTC)
To: URI <uri@w3.org>, "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>, "uri-review@ietf.org" <uri-review@ietf.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0909042013300.26930@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > >
> > > Because that's how URI and thus URLs are defined.
> > 
> > The ws: and wss: URLs are IRIs; why would we limit them to URIs? I'm 
> > not especially interested in ASCII-only URIs at this point. These URLs 
> > are only ever going to be used in contexts that accept full IRIs.
> But that's not who registering an URI scheme works. Check the relevant 
> RFCs. Essentially you register the *URI* scheme, and get IRIs based on 
> the mapping rules defined in RFC 3987.

That's what I thought, but then I got feedback saying I had to register an 
IRI scheme if I wanted to use IRIs.

I've no interest in making ws: and wss: URIs. Only IRIs.

If I define the syntax to be a subset of the full URI syntax, how does it 
ever get extended to be a subset of the full IRI syntax?

What should I put in the spec to make you happy and to make the use of ws: 
and wss: IRIs fully well-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...
> > 
> > Isn't what the Web Socket protocol spec now says suitable?
> I haven't checked yet.
> It would be helpful if you didn't abuse the IETF ID submission system as local
> storage, and only submitted new drafts when you want community review.

Release early, release often. I always want community review.

> Is now a good moment to read it?

It's always a good moment to read it.

> > > Don't use the include feature then.
> > 
> > The reference feature allows me to automatically generate the 
> > references, which is of more benefit to me than referencing STD 
> > numbers instead of RFC numbers.
> The RFC reference is immutable. Just paste the content in your source 
> file, and change the anchor attribute value.

My source file is an HTML document, so I don't think that would work well.

> > > > > 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.".
> > > It may not need many more words, but certainly a few more words.
> > 
> > Could you elaborate? Which words should I add?
> You need to state how you want to encode non-ASCII characters. "See RFC3987"
> goes into the right direction but really isn't sufficient. Please see RFC
> 4395, Section 2.6:
> "2.6. Internationalization and Character Encoding
>    When describing URI schemes in which (some of) the elements of the
>    URI are actually representations of human-readable text, care should
>    be taken not to introduce unnecessary variety in the ways in which
>    characters are encoded into octets and then into URI characters; see
>    RFC 3987 [6] and Section 2.5 of RFC 3986 [5] for guidelines.  If URIs
>    of a scheme contain any text fields, the scheme definition MUST
>    describe the ways in which characters are encoded, and any
>    compatibility issues with IRIs of the scheme."

I've read this, but as far as I can tell, "Always UTF-8" and "See IRI" are 
both complete and accurate ways of addressing this.

Since apparently neither of these options satisfies you, could you state 
exactly what literal text would satisfy you?

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 4 September 2009 20:17:00 UTC

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