Re: [hybi] ws: and wss: schemes

Ian Hickson wrote:
> ...
>> Because that's how URI and thus URLs are defined.
> 
> The ws: and wss: URLs are IRIs; why would we limit them to URIs? I'm not 
> especially interested in ASCII-only URIs at this point. These URLs are 
> only ever going to be used in contexts that accept full IRIs.
> ...

But that's not who registering an URI scheme works. Check the relevant 
RFCs. Essentially you register the *URI* scheme, and get IRIs based on 
the mapping rules defined in RFC 3987.

>>>> Furthermore, it still doesn't answer what the semantics of these 
>>>> parts are. What do "ihier-part" and "iquery" represent in a ws URI?
>>> This is defined by the RFC 3987, no? Surely we wouldn't want IRI 
>>> components to have different meanings in different schemes?
>> If you can point to a section in RFC 3987 which defines more than the 
>> syntax, and can state that that also applies to "ws", then, great...
> 
> Isn't what the Web Socket protocol spec now says suitable?

I haven't checked yet.

It would be helpful if you didn't abuse the IETF ID submission system as 
local storage, and only submitted new drafts when you want community 
review. Is now a good moment to read it?

> ...
>> Don't use the include feature then.
> 
> The reference feature allows me to automatically generate the references, 
> which is of more benefit to me than referencing STD numbers instead of 
> RFC numbers.
> ...

The RFC reference is immutable. Just paste the content in your source 
file, and change the anchor attribute value.

>>> I've deferred to RFC3987 to sidestep this issue.
>> A URI is not a IRI.
>>
>> You can refer to the mapping, but that really needs a few more words 
>> than "See RFC3987.".
> 
> I don't care about the URI part, only the IRI part.
> ...

You can't register an IRI scheme. (Unless I missed something).

 > ...
>> If 'ws:' were defined as an IRI scheme, you could then use RFC 3987 to 
>> define its mapping to a URI. This is what is done in specs like XLink 
>> 1.1. Defining 'ws:' as an IRI scheme would not necessarily be a bad 
>> thing
> 
> Ok... Let's do that then. I couldn't find any documentation on how to do 
> that. I've just changed the words "URI" to "IRI" in the registration. Is 
> that what needs to happen?

Nope. (See above)

 > ...
>>>> I've deferred to RFC3987 to sidestep this issue.
>>> A URI is not a IRI.
>>>
>>> You can refer to the mapping, but that really needs a few more words 
>>> than "See RFC3987.".
>> It may not need many more words, but certainly a few more words.
> 
> Could you elaborate? Which words should I add?

You need to state how you want to encode non-ASCII characters. "See 
RFC3987" goes into the right direction but really isn't sufficient. 
Please see RFC 4395, Section 2.6:

"2.6. Internationalization and Character Encoding

    When describing URI schemes in which (some of) the elements of the
    URI are actually representations of human-readable text, care should
    be taken not to introduce unnecessary variety in the ways in which
    characters are encoded into octets and then into URI characters; see
    RFC 3987 [6] and Section 2.5 of RFC 3986 [5] for guidelines.  If URIs
    of a scheme contain any text fields, the scheme definition MUST
    describe the ways in which characters are encoded, and any
    compatibility issues with IRIs of the scheme."

BR, Julian