Message 146188 - Python tracker

➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author	nailor
Recipients	ezio.melotti, nailor, oberstet, orsenthil
Date	2011-10-22.20:32:32
SpamBayes Score	4.6663215e-05
Marked as misclassified	No
Message-id	<1319315553.68.0.644767093477.issue13244@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to

Content
I added a patch that adds support for WebSocket URL protocol. However, a few pointers (and questions): - The patch is now implemented according to Draft 17[1] of WebSocket protocol - Draft 17 does not support fragments, it states that the fragments should be treated as a part of the URL, so I didn't add the ws and wss support in uses_fragments. However, the Draft 17 states also, that those should always be encoded. Should there be a special case for ws/wss URLs that have non-encoded number-signs in them, for example should we raise some sort of an exception? [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-17

I added a patch that adds support for WebSocket URL protocol.

However, a few pointers (and questions):

- The patch is now implemented according to Draft 17[1] of WebSocket protocol

- Draft 17 does not support fragments, it states that the fragments should be treated as a part of the URL, so I didn't add the ws and wss support in uses_fragments. However, the Draft 17 states also, that those should always be encoded. Should there be a special case for ws/wss URLs that have non-encoded number-signs in them, for example should we raise some sort of an exception?

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-17

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2011-10-22 20:32:33	nailor	set	recipients: + nailor, orsenthil, ezio.melotti, oberstet
2011-10-22 20:32:33	nailor	set	messageid: <1319315553.68.0.644767093477.issue13244@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2011-10-22 20:32:33	nailor	link	issue13244 messages
2011-10-22 20:32:32	nailor	create