Re: request for a new URL scheme

John C. Daub (jcd7106@tam2000.tamu.edu)
Wed, 10 Apr 1996 14:35:02 -0500 (CDT)


Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 14:35:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: "John C. Daub" <jcd7106@tam2000.tamu.edu>
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@osf.org>
Cc: uri@bunyip.com
Subject: Re: request for a new URL scheme
In-Reply-To: <9604101917.AA09724@sulphur.osf.org>
Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.92.960410143008.2603A-100000@tam2000.tamu.edu>

On Wed, 10 Apr 1996, Rich Salz wrote:

> I would rather see browers that allowed telnet-style helper apps to
> be specified on a per-port basis.

in other words, the current browser that you are using would have to
parse the telnet url.  based upon the the port (if any was specified,
else default to the "generic" telnet app), launch x y or z application.

that could also be pretty cool.  would allow some nice flexibility.

but as was stated sometime before, a problem with what i was
originally proposing was that the current client authors would have
to rewrite their code to support a new URL scheme.

to do something like this would require a good deal of rewriting
to be able to support all some thousand possible port numbers.
even if people could give a range of ports (e.g. ports between
4000 and 5000, use X; between 5001 and 7000 use Y, else use default),
who's to say how many possible settings one user might wnat to have
(who knows...some smart-ass might want an individual app for every
port out there....you never know).

so, how to support that without some major rewriting? :(

i think it's a good idea, and if it wouldn't cause too much dissruption
and rewriting, why not go for this also?

John C. Daub (aka Hsoi)   | <mailto:hsoi@tamu.edu>
Grad Student, Lab Manager | <http://http.tamu.edu:8000/~jcd7106/>
Self-proclaimed Mac Guru  | Department of Speech Communication
Will program for food.    | Texas A&M University, USA