From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 19:11:32 +0200 From: Enrico Weigelt To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] URI scheme for 9P2000 resources Message-ID: <20070630171132.GA1435@nibiru.local> References: <200706301532.l5UFWXTC024201@laika.gnusto.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200706301532.l5UFWXTC024201@laika.gnusto.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Topicbox-Message-UUID: 8cda013a-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 * David Arnold wrote: > the relevant specification is RFC-3986, and especially section 3. > > SLP (RFC-2608) gives an example of existing practice using a form like > > 9p:tcp://hostname/service/my/path hmm, is this an valid URL ? > Subversion uses > > svn+ssh://hostname/my/path Seems some bit unclean to me, if we would put the transport proto here. It should be as optional as the port. inetd-style port notation (ie. 123/tcp) could be nice, but would be incompatible. Why not 9p:/proto/hostname:port/my/path or 9p://hostname:port.proto/my/path ? cu -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: http://patches.metux.de/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------