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

Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> Wed, 12 August 2009 00:25 UTC

Return-Path: <mjs@apple.com>
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 831303A68B6; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:25:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 acHsweeDJIgh; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:25:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out4.apple.com (mail-out4.apple.com [17.254.13.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0EBB3A68AF; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:25:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay15.apple.com (relay15.apple.com [17.128.113.54]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A677E714FC7A; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 11807136-b7b3cae0000059ab-36-4a820b91b2a1
Received: from et.apple.com (et.apple.com [17.151.62.12]) by relay15.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 5D.0F.22955.19B028A4; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Received: from il0301a-dhcp33.apple.com (il0301a-dhcp33.apple.com [17.203.14.161]) by et.apple.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPSA id <0KO8001PEMEAKR60@et.apple.com>; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <4E34F2AF-C737-4A7D-AD9F-07AD177313BA@apple.com>
From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
In-reply-to: <1249869122.20315.388.camel@dbooth-laptop>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:23:45 -0700
References: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0908070531430.28566@hixie.dreamhostps.com> <1249651007.25446.8934.camel@dbooth-laptop> <4A7CD53D.13936.1264B606@dan.tobias.name> <1249869122.20315.388.camel@dbooth-laptop>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAZE=
Cc: "Daniel R. Tobias" <dan@tobias.name>, uri-review@ietf.org, hybi@ietf.org, uri@w3.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: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:25:02 -0000

On Aug 9, 2009, at 6:52 PM, David Booth wrote:

> On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 21:30 -0400, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
>> On 7 Aug 2009 at 9:16, David Booth wrote:
>>
>>> Note that I am talking about the *scheme*, not the protocol.  In
>>> essence, a URI prefix such as "http://wss.example/" can be defined  
>>> that
>>> would serve the same purpose as a "wss:" scheme: an agent that
>>> recognizes this prefix will know to attempt the WSS protocol.
>>
>> It seems like a bad idea to me, to have to build special exceptions
>> to how a user agent processes URIs, where the protocol specified in
>> the URI isn't actually the one that is used, based on "magic strings"
>> within other parts than the scheme.
>
> I can't see that as a significant issue, as there is only a trivial
> difference between dispatching based on the string prefix
> "http://wss.example/" and the string prefix "wss:".  Both are simple,
> constant strings and both are equally "magic": they cause agent to
> attempt the WSS protocol.

The difference is that "http://wss.example/" already has a meaning,  
which is not the intended one. Whereas "wss:" currently has no  
meaning. Thus the former has greater risk of either colliding with an  
existing resource, or being misinterpreted by a legacy client (instead  
of just rejected).

Regards,
Maciej