[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Uri-review] 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