We wouldn't need SSL with name-based virtual hosts if web browsers could use SRV records (and thus connect to different ports, so the server would know which cert to cough up without requiring the name.)
This doesn't really scale. Every SSL-protected vhost then needs its own port on the server. In current practice there are probably plenty of free ports, but it just seems like a poor choice overall.
(Regardless, as I mentioned above, name-based vhosts work just fine with HTTPS, using SNI. Much easier to fill in the gaps in browser support for SNI than to get everyone to adopt SRV records.)
(Regardless, as I mentioned above, name-based vhosts work just fine with HTTPS, using SNI. Much easier to fill in the gaps in browser support for SNI than to get everyone to adopt SRV records.)