- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 10:51:30 +1000
- To: Felipe Gasper <felipe@felipegasper.com>
- Cc: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Good question. * RFC6455's title is "The WebSocket Protocol", and that seems to be used _fairly_ consistently in the spec's prose. * A few places in 6455 refer to it as "WebSockets". * The WHATWG HTML spec (which appears to be authoritative for the API) has a section title of "Web sockets", and the interface is called "WebSocket", which seems to be used consistently in the rest of the prose. <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/web-sockets.html#network> * The URI scheme registry uses "WebSocket". <https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/uri-schemes.xhtml> * The HTTP upgrade token registry uses "The Web Socket Protocol" <https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-upgrade-tokens/http-upgrade-tokens.xhtml> * RFC7692 uses "WebSocket" very consistently. * The IANA WebSocket protocol registries seem to use "WebSocket" consistently. This specification <https://httpwg.org/http-extensions/draft-ietf-httpbis-h2-websockets.html> uses "WebSockets" and "WebSocket" and "The WebSocket Protocol", but uses "websocket" in the actual upgrade. > On 29 Aug 2018, at 10:33 am, Felipe Gasper <felipe@felipegasper.com> wrote: > > > >> On Aug 28, 2018, at 7:46 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >> >> On 29 Aug 2018, at 6:38 am, Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be> wrote: >>> >>> I think it's probably the most interoperable to duplicate the existing entries to the new token. >> >> That means that it would just say "The Web Socket Protocol" and reference RFC6455. >> >> I don't think that's helpful; someone looking at the registry would rightly wonder why there are two nearly-identical entries, without any visible means of finding out. >> >> If we're really going to go this route, I'd suggest: >> >> "The Web Sockets Protocol over HTTP/2" with a reference to this specification, along with explanatory text in this spec noting that it's a different value, and why. >> >> Personally, I really wonder if existing implementations have seen enough deployment to preclude just changing the value. > > > Not to be pedantic, but which of these is the correct name for the protocol? > > > a) WebSocket > > b) WebSockets > > c) Web Socket > > d) Web Sockets > > I'm seeing multiple variants in this thread, and while consistency is the topic, I thought it worth asking. > > Thanks! > > - Felipe Gasper > Mississauga, Ontario > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2018 00:51:58 UTC