Subject: RE: [BXXPwg] SOAP over BEEP

From: Bill Mills <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 12:09:02 -0700

I had not asked this before, but does this indicate that the algorithms
currently in use do not conform to the RFC per se?  Admittedly we fall into
the vague <schem name>:<opaque scheme specific part> type of construction.

-----Original Message-----
From: Eamon O'Tuathail [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 9:47 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [BXXPwg] SOAP over BEEP

>> Why not use something similar to the JDBC URLs in Java:
>>
>>  beep:tcp
>>  beep:tcp:ssl
>>  beep:sctp

As Roy says at:
http://lists.invisible.net/pipermail/bxxpwg/2001-June/000523.html

"You have no idea how many systems you would break simply by choosing
   beep:soap://example.com/
over
   soap.beep://example.com/

They may seem the same, but the first requires an algorithm change in
every deployed piece of Web software, whereas the second just requires
the addition of a plug-in handler."

_______________________________________________
BXXPwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.invisible.net/mailman/listinfo/bxxpwg

_______________________________________________
BXXPwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.invisible.net/mailman/listinfo/bxxpwg

---

From: "Eamon O'Tuathail" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 21:22:24 +0100

Bill,

RFC 2396 - section 3, first paragraph - The scheme name is up to the first
':'. Most pieces of deployed software only look at that and then branch off
to a handler - and these handlers are usually configurable based on the
scheme name. They will give you the <scheme specific part> (from just past
to the first ':' to the end).  If you plan to use a ':' separated scheme
name, then you will need some sort of super-handler that is smart enough to
work out the second part of the scheme name. If you use the '.' notation
(e.g. "soap.beep"), then you can directly activate a suitable soap handler.

>> does this indicate that the algorithms
>> currently in use do not conform to the RFC per se?

Which algorithms are you talking about?
To which specs / drafts do they belong?

Eamon

---

From: "Roy T. Fielding" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 14:12:53 -0700

> the vague <schem name>:<opaque scheme specific part> type of construction.

Yes, there are still a significant number of applications that do not
conform to RFC 2396.  Older versions of Netscape Navigator are the worst.

In any case, the scheme1:scheme2:* syntax makes it impossible for the
URL to be used with relative URI, and prevents generic URI parsing
code from being used to separate the URI into components for use.
It is therefore a bad design unless it is the designer's intention to make
it harder to implement the URI with relative forms and existing parsers.

The "." was included in the URI scheme syntax specifically for this purpose.
I don't understand why anyone would try to avoid it.

....Roy