W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > August 2009

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:39:36 +0200
Message-ID: <4A8514B8.1060808@gmx.de>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Chris Anderson <jchris@apache.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Pieter Hintjens <ph@imatix.com>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Kristof Zelechovski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>, Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>, David Orchard <orchard@pacificspirit.com>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, "Daniel R. Tobias" <dan@tobias.name>, uri-review@ietf.org, uri@w3.org, hybi@ietf.org
Ian Hickson wrote:
>> I assume you are using ABNF syntax (RFC5234) and terminology from the URI
>> spec, but you really need to state that.
> Thanks, fixed.
> (I tried referencing STD68 instead of RFC5234, as we do in HTML5, but 
> apparently there's no index of STD references for xml2rfc?)

Just day "STD68" instead of "RFC5234" in the reference/@anchor element.

>>>    URI scheme semantics.
>>>       The only operation for this scheme is to open a connection using
>>>       the Web Socket protocol.
>>>    Encoding considerations.
>>>       UTF-8 only.
>> What does this mean?
> That the only encoding that can be used with this scheme is UTF-8. What is 
> unclear?

You can only have ASCII characters in a URI. I believe you're trying to 
do the right thing, but it really requires a few more words (...when 
non-URL characters are to be used in a ws URI, they need to be encoded 
using UTF-8 and then percent-escaped...)

> ...
> I've refactored the Web Sockets API and Web Sockets Protocol specs so that 
> the parsing of Web Socket URLs happens all within the Web Sockets Protocol 
> spec. Let me know if that's not enough. I can include more details if you 
> would like.
> ...

Maybe than that spec should carry the URI definition and registration.

> (If you do want more, a reference to how another scheme registration 
> defines the semantics of parts of the URL would be useful, so that I can 
> use a similar style.)

Looking at relatively recent RFCs, and example would be 

If there is no defined semantics for the two parts then the definition 
should just state that.

 > ...

BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 14 August 2009 07:40:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:52 UTC