Re: request for a new URL scheme

John C. Daub (
Wed, 10 Apr 1996 14:23:04 -0500 (CDT)

Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 14:23:04 -0500 (CDT)
From: "John C. Daub" <>
To: Reed Wade <>
Subject: Re: request for a new URL scheme 
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-Id: <>

On Wed, 10 Apr 1996, Reed Wade wrote:

> This is not necessarily a bad idea but I think you'll
> have a very hard time getting this adopted. And if
> adopted, implemented by browser writers.

yes.  the actual implimentation into the URL standard wouldn't be
that hard to do.  it'd be getting all the software authors to
support it and release new versions of their software just for
this thing.

> I'd suggest trying something a little different.
> Define a new mime type that's associated with a
> well formed mud description.

that's a good idea....

> For example
> x-application/mud-info
> as the mime type for a file that looks like this:
> host:
> port: 8080
> description: blah
> admin-contact:

i like this information stuff.

> You'd then need some sort of helper application that
> would read this file and fire off the mud client
> (or build this functionality into the mud client).

yes, but that would then make it a bit harder to make a reference
to a mud.   you'd have to create a whole big file for this thing
and then how could you deal with say, someone that wanted to
post the URL to a new mud in a news posting, or an email?

are you familiar with something on the Macintosh called Internet Config?

it's a wonderful thing...makes life nicer when dealing with all your
various internet applications.

dealing with Internet Config, the URL AppleEvent and all sorts of
other things like that could become quite a task to deal with
this mime type stuff.

it'd be so much nicer (and much simpler for the non-technically
minded...which is the vast majority of Internet users nowadays)
to just have a:


to let them "command-click" on and go straight to the mud.

the mime stuff is a good alternative, but just not as flexible.

> One advantage to this is that it could be done
> without any browser changes. If it becomes popular
> then browser writers could easily obviate the helper
> application.

indeed.  it would be much easier to impliment this into existing
applications (espcially clients that, say, support a plug-in
scheme, like Netscape's Navigator)

> Another advantage is that the people who care most
> about it, the mud community, get to make the important
> decisions about how it would work.

indeed.  another good point.

i guess i'm just looking for simplicity in implimentation.  perhaps
i've been too spoiled by the joys of things like Internet Config. :)

but i would like to discuss this more with more people.  i think that
some sort of "standard" and/or "clickable" way of allowing people to
access MUDs would be a great benifit to all.  heck, the use of muds
(like i said in my original post) is expanding way beyond the
slaying of dragons into things like commerce and teaching.  tho some
people involved in business and teaching might know or be able to
be taught how to set things up, remember that the majority of
people, if it will cause the slightest of headaches, will give up
on it.

if it's made easy for the masses (even at the expense of the
software authors...and i speak as one), perhaps that could help to
catapult the popularity of MUDs, both as recreational and as a
business/educational tool.

John C. Daub (aka Hsoi)   | <>
Grad Student, Lab Manager | <>
Self-proclaimed Mac Guru  | Department of Speech Communication
Will program for food.    | Texas A&M University, USA