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: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:47:26 +0200
Message-ID: <4AA50EEE.2010303@gmx.de>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: 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>
Ian Hickson wrote:
> ...
>>>> 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?
> ...

It's better.

What I still miss is a reference from the URI registration template to 
the section which defines the syntax (*), and in that section, a 
statement about what the resource name exactly is good for. (It's 
definitively not obvious by just reading the parsing algorithm).

BR, Julian

(*) I think that section would be much more readable when it used ABNF 
as everybody else does. I hear that by specifying an algorithm you want 
to exclude certain standard things like fragments, and include error 
handling; but I think ABNF + prose would be much easier to understand. 
Furthermore, fragment identifiers are orthogonal to the URI scheme, see 

"Fragment identifier semantics are independent of the URI scheme and 
thus cannot be redefined by scheme specifications."
Received on Monday, 7 September 2009 13:48:09 UTC

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