W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > February 2010

Re: protocol negotiation

From: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:23:14 +0000
Message-ID: <4B8AB492.7080302@ninebynine.org>
To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
CC: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
I may be getting this all wrong, but HTTP upgrade?

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.42

#g
--


Danny Ayers wrote:
> Thinking out loud...
> 
> just a thought, your user agent says http://example.org, but it also
> says xmpp://blah
> 
> http://something are excellent identifiers, but can we not throw in a
> header to say "quick stuff here".
> 
> I expect someone's already spec'd this out...
> 
> 
> Er, in humans way, you send me a message over email/im/facebook, and I
> say to you, let's take this to *another. We talk over a different
> protocol.
> 
> So we shift to another protocol. Advertised in the headers.
> 
> 
> Why not fire a header over http to say - use this other protocol now.
> The http identifiers stand, but if you need something like realtime
> you can get it.
> 
> Use the http:// as the bottom line (we can always resolve that), keep
> the identifiers, but work on maybe three levels - 7
> 
> inside the vm
> http
> xmpp
> 
> (I would suggest more, but lack imagination)
> 
Received on Sunday, 28 February 2010 18:25:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:34 GMT