- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:47:36 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: URI <uri@w3.org>, hybi@ietf.org, uri-review@ietf.org, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
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. >> 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. >> 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. BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 17 September 2009 09:48:41 UTC