- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 19:40:24 +0000 (UTC)
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: uri-review@ietf.org, uri@w3.org, hybi@ietf.org
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009, David Booth wrote: > > 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. This is only expected to be used from a WebSocket API call. What fallback behaviour did you have in mind? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 7 August 2009 19:41:00 UTC