W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > November 2005

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

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 01:11:39 -0500
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0511282211v4950c89ai552d1cdbdcf057a1@mail.gmail.com>
To: "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: uri@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org
On 11/28/05, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
> So, HTTP Upgrade seems to make sense only if the Video protocol is going
> to use the same transport-layer connection.  Interesting question: should
> the application invoking HTTP know or care what connection(s) the Video
> protocol might use?


Yes, I think so.  If VIDEO required, say, two UDP streams instead of a
single TCP connection, then the client shouldn't use Upgrade to negotiate
for its use.

  Likewise for a P2P protocol?  Why indeed should the
> application know how how many transport-layer connections HTTP is using?


So that it can use Upgrade? 1/2 8-)

Mark
--
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies   http://www.coactus.com
Received on Tuesday, 29 November 2005 06:11:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:09 UTC