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

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.