- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:42:30 -0400
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: Steve Suehring <suehring@braingia.org>, uri-review@ietf.org, uri@w3.org
On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 19:07 +0200, Dan Brickley wrote: > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:01 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: > > I don't see a need to define a new URI scheme for this. You can just > > define an http URI prefix for this purpose, as described in > > http://dbooth.org/2006/urn2http/ > > > > Furthermore, as Graham Klyne suggested during a similar discussion > > earlier, "an HTTP URI can also retrieve a protocol [handler] > > implementation" > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2009Sep/0029.html > > This could dramatically improve the adoption rate of a new protocol. > > You'd really be advocating retrieval of SSH protocol handlers over > untrusted HTTP connections? That's brave or something! Good point. For this application one would presumably choose an HTTP URI prefix that starts with "https:" rather than "http:". :) -- David Booth, Ph.D. Cleveland Clinic (contractor) Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
Received on Monday, 12 October 2009 17:43:02 UTC