W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > August 2004

updating RFC 2718: Proxying into HTTP/HTML

From: <Black_David@emc.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:17:27 -0400
Message-ID: <B459CE1AFFC52D4688B2A5B842CA35EA07E5C826@corpmx14.corp.emc.com>
To: LMM@acm.org, uri@w3.org
Cc: djz@corp.webtv.net, rpetke@wcom.net, harald@alvestrand.no, tony@att.com, phoffman@imc.org


> 2.3.1 Proxy into HTTP/HTML
> This seems like it isn't a criteria for demonstrated utility,
> but perhaps even the converse. Perhaps a proxy might
> tell you about whether a scheme can be interpreted
> with GET, PUT or POST, and thus might be more well-defined
> than one that can't.

I agree that this should be toned down.  Both
telnet: and snmp: provide examples of URIs that designate
service access points for protocols whose full functionality
does not proxy well into HTTP (yes, it could be done, but
there's no good reason to do it in either case).  The
revised text should acknowledge the validity of the
"browser invokes client that knows what to do" functional
model for protocols that may not proxy well into HTTP.

David L. Black, Senior Technologist
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
black_david@emc.com        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
Received on Monday, 30 August 2004 16:18:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:08 UTC