Marshall T. Rose mrose+mtr.netnews@dbc.mtview.ca.us
Thu, 14 Jun 2001 23:44:58 -0700

> If I were to invent it from scratch, I would probably choose something
>     web://example.com:http.tcp.80/path
>     web://example.com:http.udp.7149/path
>     soap://example.com:beep.tcp.21212/path
> with the first ":http.tcp.80" being the default for the web. Obviously,
> that is getting pretty ugly.  For some reason I think this looks better
>     http://example.com/path
>     web.http.udp://example.com:7149/path
>     soap.beep.tcp://example.com:21212/path
> It also better fits the architecture of most URI handling software, which
> typically consists of a table of (scheme name , handler routine) tuples.

0. well, i agree that using "web:" instead of "http:" would certainly make
things a lot more clear, but that's water under the bridge.

1. let me understand your reaction to

> > ideally, i would prefer to avoid having to use a new scheme everytime
> > someone moves yet another service on top of beep.
> Hmmm, why?  Logically, they are distinct services.  Keep in mind that the
> "http" URL is specific to HTTP over TCP, even though HTTP itself is not
> dependent on TCP.  If we were to deploy a new HTTP-over-SCTP service,
> we would need a new URL scheme because the authority syntax of
> is specific to TCP, not HTTP.

i don't think that the http/tcp to http/sctp analogy is a good one. what i'm
trying to understand is whether it is a good thing to define two schemes for
soap.beep.tcp and ice.beep.tcp or to just have one scheme for beep over tcp.
for all three schemes, the authority part remains the same.

in guess i see your point that

> >     beep://example.com?profile=http://iana.org/beep/soap

is pretty week.

2. anyway, in comparing:


i guess i prefer the latter since when we move from "beep.tcp.21212" to
"beep.ipv6.21212" the thing to the left is going to be funky. what isn't
clear to me is whether the iana is going to be happy when i start
registering url schemes in groups of three, e.g.,