W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 1997

Re: How to add new "protocols" ?

From: <touch@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:54:47 -0800
Message-Id: <199702191854.AA00320@ash-s.isi.edu>
To: touch@isi.edu, luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it
Cc: ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu, masinter@parc.xerox.com, http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/2476
> From http-wg-request@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com Wed Feb 19 10:26:06 1997
> Resent-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:22:24 -0500 (EST)
> From: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
> > 
> > What is the advantage to a transparent selection of transport
> > protocol, given these constraints??
> Flexibility in switching transport protocols without having to rewrite
> the Web matherial.
> This is not a problem for relative URLs, but it is a major problem
> for absolute URLs, since the supplier of a document generally has
> no control over the documents referencing it. Hence even if one
> develops a wonderful mechanism to make the transport protocol
> explicit, you have to stick with the existing one (http over TCP)
> because of backward compatibility.
> 	Luigi

This is a great argument for URNs.

Not necessarily for overloading the semantics of URLs.

The problem is that you have others referencing you, but you
don't know what protocol to use.

That requires a protocol in itself, to discover the transport
mechanism. That seems like a lot of work for the first hit
to your site, thereafter which you have control and can
do what you want anyway.

Joe Touch - touch@isi.edu		    http://www.isi.edu/~touch/
ISI / Project Leader, ATOMIC-2, LSAM       http://www.isi.edu/atomic2/
USC / Research Assistant Prof.                http://www.isi.edu/lsam/
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 1997 10:58:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:01 UTC