W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: #421: Mixed Schemes

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 09:18:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWyziV7eKSiYX56v_ujL8wUszHbWiF8jftDbMoqmfC-Mg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2 April 2014 05:57, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
> The whole paragraph seems confused to me.  The semantics of a request
> are defined by the request method and header fields.  The URI specifically
> has no request semantics.  The comment assumes that http and https are
> the only relevant schemes, which just plain ignores the proxy use case
> described in HTTP/1.1.  1.1 doesn't need special requirements for that,
> since support for non-http(s) schemes is inherent to the interface
> provided by HTTP for absolute URIs.

Here's what I am going to propose.  I've had trouble getting this
right in my head, so feel free to bash on the specifics...

":scheme" is not restricted to "http:" and "https:" schemed URIs.  A
proxy or gateway can translate requests for non-HTTP schemes, enabling
the use of HTTP to interact with non-HTTP services.

I'll concede that the URI decomposition in HTTP/2 is perhaps less than
ideal for dealing with non-HTTP URIs, but since the components map
directly to the 3986 concepts, I think that we'll get away with it.
URNs, for instance, can just use :scheme and :path.

BTW, hiding this critical text in the introduction of part 1 was
canny.  I went looking in a lot of places, but didn't think to look
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2014 16:19:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:29 UTC