- From: Vasil Rangelov <boen.robot@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 18:38:04 +0300
- To: <public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org>
>| though I guess >| that's not a big deal if the HTTP and/or HTTPS schemes are required, >| so I personally support this move. > >You support allowing ical: or you support requiring http:/https:? I can't tell which you mean. Both really - Require HTTP only and allow implementations to optionally support any other scheme, including but not limited to HTTPS. >| In that case, the name http-request may become misleading, > >I suppose. We could make it p:web-request or something, I suppose. That would be just PERFECT. Though I guess maybe the c:http-request and c:http-response would have to be renamed to something like c:request and c:response respectively because of the generalizing. If other schemes are allowed, does this essentially mean other protocols are allowed? If not, it should be stated explicitly (something like "supported schemes MUST use the HTTP protocol"). And if not allowed, I guess the names won't be that misleading after all, since even though the scheme is different, the protocol is the same. If allowed, I suppose the way non-HTTP requests and responses are made will be left implementation defined? If not... base64 encoded?
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2007 15:38:22 UTC