- From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 09:56:24 -0600
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 9:43 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 1, 2013 1:50 AM, "Amos Jeffries" <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: >> This makes several assumptions which are false and will cause a lot of >> trouble: >> 1) scheme of URI is always http(s)://. > > Yes, it does make this assumption. It seems, rather safe to me. What other > schemes do we need to support? I don't think that's a safe assumption at all. I've heard of other schemes used in production systems (in enterprises, granted, but so what, the same might be useful in the Internet). Nico --
Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 15:56:49 UTC