RE: [sysapps/raw socket api]: Status on outstanding issues and proposal to close a number of issues.

Thanks Jonas,

I suggest that we have this issue at the agenda for the F2F meeting in Toronto.

BR
  Claes

From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jonas@sicking.cc]
Sent: den 2 juli 2013 22:43
To: Nilsson, Claes1
Cc: public-sysapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: [sysapps/raw socket api]: Status on outstanding issues and proposal to close a number of issues.

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Nilsson, Claes1 <Claes1.Nilsson@sonymobile.com<mailto:Claes1.Nilsson@sonymobile.com>> wrote:
address + port vs uri, https://github.com/sysapps/raw-sockets/issues/17:
I think we need more discussion on this proposal. Personally I need to get a better view on advantages/disadvantages of using URI addresses instead of explicit IP-address and port arguments.

I would recommend reaching out to IANA on this, and possibly the W3C webapps working group.
In general on the web platform, any URI can be used anywhere URIs can be used. So a blob: or a filesystem: URI works in <img src="..."> as well <iframe src="..."> and XMLHttpRequest.open("GET", "...").
That wouldn't be the case with a tcp: scheme or a udp: scheme.
However, it's also not the case with ws: or wss:. In fact, tcp: and udp: work pretty similarly to ws: and wss:.
Generally I don't have a strong opinion, but minting new schemes tend to be a pretty political thing that you generally want to stay away from. But it might be the right thing to do.
/ Jonas