Re: [Uri-review] ws: and wss: schemes

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":
> 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       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Friday, 7 August 2009 19:41:00 UTC