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

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

From: Joseph A Holsten <joseph@josephholsten.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 02:56:53 -0500
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, 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: <92531F42-BD89-4B2B-82E7-957BA99D6BEC@josephholsten.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Julian Reschke supposedly wrote:
> Joseph A Holsten wrote:
>> ...
>> The only scheme I can think of that was defined as an IRI was XMPP  
>> [RFC4622]. It actually makes more sense when you start with IRIs.  
>> If that's what you need, please just do that.
>> ...
>
> Actually, that RFC *registers* a URI scheme; see <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4622#section-3 
> >.

It does, and so should websocket. But every other scheme RFC defines  
the URI first and foremost, then describes how to map IRIs. If  
websocket will be an IRI scheme first and foremost, defining it in  
terms of ihier-part and iquery makes sense. Then just adapt the text  
from RFC4622 sections 2 and 3.

The first sentence from <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4622#section-2.8.1 
 > seems quite similar to Ian's preference with websocket:
"If a processing application is presented with an XMPP URI and not  
with an XMPP IRI, it MUST first convert the URI into an IRI by  
following the procedure specified in Section 3.2 of [IRI]."
--
Joseph Holsten
Received on Saturday, 5 September 2009 07:57:41 GMT

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