cost/benefit analysis of new URI scheme vs overloading "host name"

• From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
• Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 10:02:27 -0700
• To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
• CC: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <8B62A039C620904E92F1233570534C9B0118C8780D19@nambx04.corp.adobe.com>

I looked in the draft, and what I'm missing is the
cost/benefit analysis of this proposal against the
alternatives.


http+srv://hostname.tld/blah/blah

vs.

http://hostname.tld.SRV/blah/blah

vs.

http://[SRV:hostname.tld]/blah/blah

or 

http://SRV*hostname.tld/blah/blah

or some such. It seems like if you're going to introduce a new way of discovering a route to a host, overloading the host field would be better than overloading the scheme/protocol.

Received on Monday, 9 March 2009 17:03:16 UTC