Re: [whatwg/url] Addressing HTTP servers over Unix domain sockets (#577)

@thx1111 - mea cupla, "host schemes" was a poor choice of words. Perhaps "kinds of authority" is a better phrase: the current URI syntax seems to be biased towards TCP, and your proposal tries to at least extend it to more naturally support UDS.

I do have another concrete example in mind: for my use case I also want to be able to do HTTP over VSOCKs. The address for a AF_VSOCK socket is a 32-bit port number together with a 32-bit context ID. I'm not sure how I'd encode a VSOCK address into an authority with your port proposal: something like `localhost:vsock/<port>/<cid>` isn't terribly natural and could be interpreted as a UDS path instead.

My point being that making the port either a number or a path is also not as future-proof as it could be: IF we want to make the authority syntax less of a round role for other kinds of authority, I'd be inclined to make the authority more opaque at the generix URI syntax level, so specific URI schemes can encode the kinds of authority they support more naturally and with less need for percent-encoding.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/577#issuecomment-2605562534
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <whatwg/url/issues/577/2605562534@github.com>