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

Re: ws: and wss: schemes

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:14:15 +0000 (UTC)
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: URI <uri@w3.org>, hybi@ietf.org, uri-review@ietf.org, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0909171012140.20271@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
> > >
> > > (*) I think that section would be much more readable when it used 
> > > ABNF as everybody else does.
> > 
> > Assuming you mean the section that says how to parse the URLs, then 
> > the only part of it that could conceivably use ABNF is the part 
> > defined in [WebAddresses], so I don't know what it would mean to use 
> > ABNF here.
> 
> I meant Section 3.1, which essentially is useless, as it replicates 
> what's said in the ABNF in the registration template.

The ABNF doesn't say how you parse the URI, it says how you check if it's 
valid. Section 3.1 doesn't say how you parse the URI, it says how you 
apply the algorithm from [WebAddresses] in a way that extracts the fields 
you need to use Web Sockets.


> > > 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.
> > 
> > Please send such feedback to Larry; I am no longer editing those algorithms.
> 
> I'm still talking about WebSockets, Part 3.1.

I have no idea how ABNF could possibly be used in section 3.1. Could you 
show an example of what you mean?


> > > 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."
> > 
> > I've no idea to what you are referring here. Where are fragment 
> > identifiers even mentioned in the Web Socket protocol spec?
> 
> You did mention them on IRC 
> (<http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090904#l-1007>):
> 
> > # [23:26] <Hixie> annevk3: and i want the frag-id case to be invalid 
> > before conversion
> 
> What I'm trying to explain is you can't make frag-ids "invalid", even by 
> the way you specify the parsing.

Ok.

I encourage you to review the actual spec, and not my comments on IRC.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 10:08:53 GMT

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