- From: <Black_David@emc.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:17:27 -0400
- To: LMM@acm.org, uri@w3.org
- Cc: djz@corp.webtv.net, rpetke@wcom.net, harald@alvestrand.no, tony@att.com, phoffman@imc.org
Larry, > 2.3.1 Proxy into HTTP/HTML > > This seems like it isn't a criteria for demonstrated utility, > but perhaps even the converse. Perhaps a proxy might > tell you about whether a scheme can be interpreted > with GET, PUT or POST, and thus might be more well-defined > than one that can't. I agree that this should be toned down. Both telnet: and snmp: provide examples of URIs that designate service access points for protocols whose full functionality does not proxy well into HTTP (yes, it could be done, but there's no good reason to do it in either case). The revised text should acknowledge the validity of the "browser invokes client that knows what to do" functional model for protocols that may not proxy well into HTTP. Thanks, --David ---------------------------------------------------- David L. Black, Senior Technologist EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 black_david@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ----------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 30 August 2004 16:18:28 UTC