Re: Requiring http/https

On 9/4/07, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Alex Milowski writes:
>
> > We need to deleted dynamic error XC0021.
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/docs/langspec.html#err.C0021
> >
> > We can't require https because some implementations may not support
> > encryption but we shouldn't require it to be http/https if an implementation
> > can support another scheme (e.g. a GET request on a "file" scheme).
>
> Hmm.  I agree we should make https support implementation-defined, but
> I'm not sure about allowing 'file'. . .  All the options and so
> much of the syntax of c:http-request and c:http-response is geared to
> managing headers and encoding and so on.  What's the use case that
> p:load doesn't address?

In some cases you might get the URI from a relative like against the
base URI of the document.  That URI may be of a different scheme than
"http" or "https".  If the implementation can support the scheme and
the method, it should do so.

There may also be other variants and non-standard protocols used
in certain application environments that shouldn't be excluded.  For example,
I have a scheme I use to tunnel HTTP request of XMPP.

--Alex Milowski
"The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
considered."

Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics

Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2007 16:39:32 UTC