Re: New URI scheme talk in RSS-land

On Dec 08, 2003, at 14:23, ext Sandro Hawke 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.
>
> Just make the server include all the necessary information
> (subscription instructions) in the response body.  It seems to me,
> looking at the semantics of the situation, that's the right thing to
> do anyway.

Yes. Having the necessary information in the RSS instance itself
would be the simplest -- though a more general solution to
MIME based delegation that included the ability to provide the
full response (and request URI) to the helper app would
probably have general utility.

>
> No need to hack the browser at all.
>
> (Although I still think doing this kind of thing from an aggregator
> makes more sense, anyway.)
>

Well, I think the bottom line is that there are numerous ways
to achieve the stated goals without having to introduce a new
URI scheme.

Cheers,

Patrick


>         -- sandro
>
>

--

Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland
patrick.stickler@nokia.com