- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 19:37:52 -0500
- To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>, RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, uri@w3.org
Aaron Swartz wrote:
> Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com> wrote:
>
> >> (b) support for [URNs] is available in popular browsers and has
> >> been for several generations
> >
> > Just curious - how do browsers support URNs?
Thru various hooks, esp HTTP proxying...
It is likewise
recommended that, where a protocol allows for retrieval by URL,
that the
client software have provision for being configured to use specific
gateway locators for indirect access through new naming schemes.
-- RFC 1630 URIs in WWW June 1994
from http://www.w3.org/Addressing/schemes#hack-schemes
Unfortunately, in NS4.x, this only works for urn: , not
for all absolute URIs that follow the right syntax.
For details, see
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2001/telagent/#ns-parse-bug
I reported the goofy parsing of URI schemes such as irc: and tel:
as a bug (#2110) and it's fixed in mozilla. I hear there's
something related called protozilla, but I don't know the details.
Internet explorer also has support for URI scheme extensiblity.
see #hack-schemes above for details.
Konqueror had some minor bugs; I reported those, and I think
they're being fixed.
In general, the clients are getting better.
> oded or does it look it up somehow?).
It's just a local proxy mechanism. There are designs for
new ubiquitous services for URN resolution, but (a) they're
not widely deployed, and (b) the well-designed ones
work for all URIs... just as well to make http: URIs
more robust as to make urn:'s work.
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2001 21:43:47 UTC