RE: Should the HTTP protocol become "inapropriate"

> From: John Bradley [mailto:john.bradley@wingaa.com]
[ . .  . ]
> > >           * use the least specific bits of the domain name
> >
> >     That would also be fine if the owner of that URI space
> >    chooses to establish that convention.
>
> This is convenient in that it allows multiple proxies without
> registration.  The downside is that it confers special
> meaning on a host name and can have an impact on people who
> don't want to participate in the sub-scheme.
>
> Why should someone tell me that xri or xmpp is a reserved
> host name.   I can see this leading to all sorts of great.
>
> It is equivalent to saying that part of the http protocol
> will only apply to hosts named www.

Hold on, it sounds like I misunderstood your short-hand.  When you said one of the options was:

> > >           * use the least specific bits of the domain name

I thought you were talking about using http://hxri.xri.net/ as a URI prefix to indicate that all URIs matching http://hxri.xri.net/* conform to a particular URI convention and should be interpreted as HXRIs.   It would *not* be okay to claim that all URIs matching http://hxri.*.*/* should be interpreted as HXRIs.  The XRI TC does not have the authority to define the special conventions for http://hxri.*.*/*, but the owner of xri.net *does* have the authority to define special conventions for http://hxri.xri.net/* .




David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/go/software

Statements made herein represent the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of HP unless explicitly so stated.