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

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Fri, 14 August 2009 07:42 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA12C3A67B1 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.69
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.69 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.091, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4RM9Z3ZKFNMo for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 351403A672E for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 14 Aug 2009 07:39:44 -0000
Received: from p508FEE38.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.33]) [80.143.238.56] by mail.gmx.net (mp068) with SMTP; 14 Aug 2009 09:39:44 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18YtME3n9MYNO5N+2tgN1DjNHBZU3nj0To5Sk4VMS QnemowhAX4sW/3
Message-ID: <4A8514B8.1060808@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:39:36 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/1.5.0.4 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0908070531430.28566@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <1249651007.25446.8934.camel@dbooth-laptop> <0B450D619CC0486E8BD51C31FBA214AD@POCZTOWIEC> <20090812021926.GC19298@shareable.org> <AB9A0CF094F04D39BC7DC5DEAFF7FC1C@POCZTOWIEC> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0908140544590.6420@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0908140544590.6420@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-FuHaFi: 0.5600000000000001
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:45:50 -0700
Cc: hybi@ietf.org, "Daniel R. Tobias" <dan@tobias.name>, uri-review@ietf.org, Kristof Zelechovski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>, uri@w3.org, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] [Uri-review] ws: and wss: schemes
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 07:42:13 -0000

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 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4516#section-2>.

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

 > ...

BR, Julian