Re: ws: and wss: schemes

Ian Hickson wrote:
> ...
>> (*) I think that section would be much more readable when it used ABNF 
>> as everybody else does.
> 
> Assuming you mean the section that says how to parse the URLs, then the 
> only part of it that could conceivably use ABNF is the part defined in 
> [WebAddresses], so I don't know what it would mean to use ABNF here.
> ...

I meant Section 3.1, which essentially is useless, as it replicates 
what's said in the ABNF in the registration template.

>> I hear that by specifying an algorithm you want to exclude certain 
>> standard things like fragments, and include error handling; but I think 
>> ABNF + prose would be much easier to understand.
> 
> Please send such feedback to Larry; I am no longer editing those 
> algorithms.

I'm still talking about WebSockets, Part 3.1.

>> Furthermore, fragment identifiers are orthogonal to the URI scheme, see 
>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.3.5.p.2>:
>>
>> "Fragment identifier semantics are independent of the URI scheme and 
>> thus cannot be redefined by scheme specifications."
> 
> I've no idea to what you are referring here. Where are fragment 
> identifiers even mentioned in the Web Socket protocol spec?

You did mention them on IRC 
(<http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090904#l-1007>):

 > # [23:26] <Hixie> annevk3: and i want the frag-id case to be invalid
 > before conversion

What I'm trying to explain is you can't make frag-ids "invalid", even by 
the way you specify the parsing.

BR, Julian