- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 21:52:02 -0400
- To: "Daniel R. Tobias" <dan@tobias.name>
- Cc: uri-review@ietf.org, hybi@ietf.org, uri@w3.org
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 21:30 -0400, Daniel R. Tobias wrote: > On 7 Aug 2009 at 9:16, David Booth wrote: > > > 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. > > It seems like a bad idea to me, to have to build special exceptions > to how a user agent processes URIs, where the protocol specified in > the URI isn't actually the one that is used, based on "magic strings" > within other parts than the scheme. I can't see that as a significant issue, as there is only a trivial difference between dispatching based on the string prefix "http://wss.example/" and the string prefix "wss:". Both are simple, constant strings and both are equally "magic": they cause agent to attempt the WSS protocol. -- 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 Monday, 10 August 2009 01:52:46 UTC