- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2009 09:16:47 -0400
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: uri-review@ietf.org, uri@w3.org, hybi@ietf.org
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 05:35 +0000, Ian Hickson wrote: > The formal registrations for the ws: and wss: schemes, part of the Web > Socket protocol, will be available in the Web Socket protocol ID as soon > as the IETF upload process completes: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hixie-thewebsocketprotocol#section-7 > This looks to me like a perfect example of a case where a new scheme is not needed, as the same thing can be accomplished by defining an http URI prefix, as described in "Converting New URI Schemes or URN Sub-Schemes to HTTP": http://dbooth.org/2006/urn2http/ Note that I am talking about the *scheme*, not the protocol. In essence, a URI prefix such as "http://wss.example/" can be defined that would serve the same purpose as a "wss:" scheme: an agent that recognizes this prefix will know to attempt the WSS protocol. But an agent that doesn't *might* still be able to fall back to doing something useful with the URI if it were an http URI, whereas it couldn't if it were a "wss:" URI. New schemes should not be created unless they are needed. I think it would be better to first implement this by defining an http URI prefix, see what the adoption is, and then in a few years, *if* there is widespread agent support for the protocol, then a new scheme may be justified. -- David Booth, Ph.D. Cleveland Clinic (contractor) Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
Received on Friday, 7 August 2009 13:17:26 UTC