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

Honestly, I think IANA is best positioned to answer this question. And
no matter what, if we decide to use a URI it means that we need to go
through IANA anyway. So I think discussing with IANA is going to be
more productive than discussing within the sysapps WG.

/ Jonas

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Nilsson, Claes1
<Claes1.Nilsson@sonymobile.com> wrote:
> 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> 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

Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2013 09:26:47 UTC