Re: [hybi] ws: and wss: schemes

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

Ian Hickson wrote:
> ...
>> I meant Section 3.1, which essentially is useless, as it replicates 
>> what's said in the ABNF in the registration template.
> 
> The ABNF doesn't say how you parse the URI, it says how you check if it's 
> valid. Section 3.1 doesn't say how you parse the URI, it says how you 

Actually, unless it's ambiguous, an ABNF *does* define how to parse.

> apply the algorithm from [WebAddresses] in a way that extracts the fields 
> you need to use Web Sockets.

As far as I can tell, it's pretty stand-alone, except for a reference to 
the "resolve the URL" algorithm, which doesn't seem to make sense here.

>>>> 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.
> 
> I have no idea how ABNF could possibly be used in section 3.1. Could you 
> show an example of what you mean?

Just use the same ABNF, state which parts define the resource name (and 
what it means), and be done with it.

>>>> 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.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> I encourage you to review the actual spec, and not my comments on IRC.

That conversation seemed to explain why you are including all that 
specification text that IMHO is useless. I was just pointing out that, 
if the reason is to exclude fragment IDs, this is not going to have the 
effect you seem to intend.

Best regards, Julian