Re: [schemeProtocols-49] New draft of proposed "URI Schemes and Web Protocols" Finding

This is good stuff, Noah.

I haven't had time to do a full review yet, but one thing I noticed early on
in section 3.1 was that an (IMO) valuable approach wasn't mentioned;
protocol upgrading.

With this approach the existing http URI would be used, but clients that
support more video-friendly application protocols would advertise that fact
via the HTTP Upgrade header in their GET request ("Upgrade: VIDEO/1.0").
The server would then be free to switch if it was able using the 101
response, or could ignore it and continue to do video-over-HTTP, or just
plain old XHTML.

As if the scheme/protocol relationship wasn't complex enough! 8-)

Cheers,

Mark.

On 11/21/05, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
> I have promised the TAG that I would prepare for our upcoming F2F a
> position on where to go with issue schemeProtocols-49 [1] (see action at
> [2]).   This note is to announce that I have prepared a significant
> revision to the draft finding on "URI Schemes and Web Protocols" [3], and
> I propose that we use it as the basis for our discussions at the F2F. This
> draft attempts to synthesize the many important bits of input that I've
> received since offering the initial draft last June (the June draft is at
> [4]).


Mark.
--
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.          http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies   http://www.coactus.com