- From: Kristof Zelechovski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
- Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 16:25:49 +0200
- To: "'Toby Inkster'" <mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>, "'Daniel R. Tobias'" <dan@tobias.name>
- Cc: "'URI'" <uri@w3.org>, <hybi@ietf.org>, <uri-review@ietf.org>
Caching does go around HTTP, it is built into HTTP by the specification. Chris -----Original Message----- From: uri-review-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:uri-review-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Toby Inkster Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 1:06 PM To: Daniel R. Tobias Cc: URI; hybi@ietf.org; uri-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Uri-review] ws: and wss: schemes On 9 Sep 2009, at 01:43, Daniel R. Tobias wrote: HTTP 1.x is only one possible protocol that can be used to resolve URIs beginning with "http://". A user agent is free to choose other protocols instead. In practice, using HTTP 1.x is often a last- resort: most user agents implement a proprietary local disk based protocol to resolve URIs, only falling back to HTTP if that fails. (i.e. they implement caching.) Software that understands your protocol will recognise the URI and handle it via your protocol. Software which doesn't will be none the wiser and simply attempt to handle the URI via HTTP. -- Toby A Inkster
Received on Wednesday, 9 September 2009 14:27:06 UTC