Support Websocket URIs?

[rbjorklin]

I have found my way over here after trying to use https://github.com/vbmithr/ocaml-websocket and realizing that ws:// and wss:// from RFC6455 are not supported. The library seems to work correctly with websockets when using http:// or https:// though so this seems to be mostly a cosmetic issue that might be easily sorted by changing this into:

| "http" | "ws" -> (module Http : Scheme)
| "https" | "wss"  -> (module Https : Scheme)

Would this be acceptable?

[avsm]

Sounds good to me; a PR would be great. Mainly it would be useful if you could look through RFC6455 and ensure that the normalisation scheme matches module Http or Https. If so, it's fine to reuse them, but are often subtle differences.

[rbjorklin]

The WebSocket Protocol attempts to address the
goals of existing bidirectional HTTP technologies in the context of
the existing HTTP infrastructure; as such, it is designed to work
over HTTP ports 80 and 443 as well as to support HTTP proxies and
intermediaries, even if this implies some complexity specific to the
current environment.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6455#section-1.1

It's also designed in such a way that its
servers can share a port with HTTP servers, by having its handshake
be a valid HTTP Upgrade request.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6455#section-1.5

    ws-URI = "ws:" "//" host [ ":" port ] path [ "?" query ]
    wss-URI = "wss:" "//" host [ ":" port ] path [ "?" query ]

    The port component is OPTIONAL; the default for "ws" is port 80,
    while the default for "wss" is port 443.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6455#section-3

It looks to me like they intentionally made it fully compatible. I'll get a PR going.