- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:04:58 +0200
- To: "ext Seairth Jacobs" <seairth@seairth.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Dec 06, 2003, at 04:48, ext Seairth Jacobs wrote: > > So what if the feed must be be accessed over HTTPS? Do we then also > need a "feeds" scheme? This is why the new-URI approach seems to go against the grain of the current web architecture. What is needed here is pretty simple. The browser needs to be extended so that it recognizes two (or more) kinds of integration with helper applications, given a particular MIME type: 1. pass the content of the response to the helper application 2. pass the entire reponse, headers and all, to the helper application For #2, it could insert the original request URI into the response header, in case the helper application prefers that to the URI denoting the response. In either case, no need to get entagled with http vs https, etc. I.e., as Norman suggested, just make the browser and handler "do the right thing". No need for new URI schemes or handling semantics here. Cheers, Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Nokia, Finland patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Monday, 8 December 2003 04:07:24 UTC