- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:59:48 +0200
- To: Kristof Zelechovski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
- Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Steve Suehring <suehring@braingia.org>, "<uri-review@ietf.org>" <uri-review@ietf.org>, "<uri@w3.org>" <uri@w3.org>
On 12 Oct 2009, at 21:35, Kristof Zelechovski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl> wrote: > David, you do not see a need to define a new URI scheme for > anything, do > you?. If I you do, please enumerate the requirements for a protocol > that > would save it from the http black hole. > SSH is not a new protocol, and the "adoption rate" does not depend > on the > URI; it is an agreement between the owner and the user that counts. > This > agreement already provides all technical information the user needs, > and > explaining it over HTTP would not be useful. > And how would you persuade the Web browser to send an HTTP SSH URI > to an > external handler instead of navigating to it? (Think Internet > Explorer, for > clarity.) ...which in turn would have rather awkward privacy characteristics. A custom scheme makes sense to me. Dan
Received on Monday, 12 October 2009 20:00:09 UTC