- From: Kristof Zelechovski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
- Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 22:34:32 +0200
- To: "'David Booth'" <david@dbooth.org>, "'Daniel R. Tobias'" <dan@tobias.name>
- Cc: <uri-review@ietf.org>, <hybi@ietf.org>, <uri@w3.org>
Whether the readability disadvantage of having a longer aliased prefix is
serious depends on how often such code has to be written or used. If Web
application developers feel the need to say { ws+"host/path" } instead of {
"ws://host/path" }, the hypercorrectness has really gone over the edge.
IMHO,
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: uri-review-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:uri-review-bounces@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of David Booth
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 3:52 AM
To: Daniel R. Tobias
Cc: uri-review@ietf.org; hybi@ietf.org; uri@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] ws: and wss: schemes
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.
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2009 20:35:26 UTC