W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1998

Re: Implications of introducing new scheme and port for exis

From: <Dominic.Chambers@mimesweeper.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 1998 09:56:10 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <00007E92.eval@mimesweeper.com>
To: http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/160
     I would agree with Josh Cohen and David Morris that introducing a new 
     URL scheme will affect proxies and is a bad idea. I also agree with 
     David Morris that a new HTTP scheme should be avoided for the same 
     Using a new default port is okay. The stuff about firewalls being 
     affected is true to the extent that they also had to be opened up for 
     the default ports used for other protocols - It really isn't a big 
     hassle reconfiguring them.
     However, I side with David Morris in questioning the need distinguish 
     between IPP and HTTP. Is there one?
     As a private person
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 1998 08:48:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:22 UTC