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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 10:34:51 +0200
Message-ID: <4AA222AB.6000902@gmx.de>
To: Joseph A Holsten <joseph@josephholsten.com>
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>
Joseph A Holsten wrote:
> 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 

Yes.

> 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.

But there's no registry for IRI scheme, as far as I can tell.

So you always define the URI scheme, and then, when needed, talk about 
how IRIs are mapped.

> 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]."
> ...

But to decide whether something is a URI, not a IRI, you need context, 
right? (Any URI *is* a IRI, after all).

BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 5 September 2009 08:35:43 GMT

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