W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > September 2009

RE: [Uri-review] ws: and wss: schemes

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>
Message-ID: <DE2C8A493F204BB68F7292EFED0C3280@POCZTOWIEC>
Caching does go around HTTP, it is built into HTTP by the specification.

-----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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:53 UTC