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 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.3.5.p.2>:

"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 GMT

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