From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <84d462a30706302313r5bf288c9l43d02fd9b031ddbd@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:13:23 -0700 From: "Skip Tavakkolian" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] URI scheme for 9P2000 resources In-Reply-To: <20070630225955.GW28917@kris.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <5d375e920706301326j6efe8921td46d6958299eef62@mail.gmail.com> <20070630225955.GW28917@kris.home> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 8d7eea1a-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 if it handles 9p: scheme, it better be 9p, not some dialect based on implementer's (mis)understanding of it. browser plugins, by virtue of what they plug into, have a potential to spread fast. it will not serve anyone if a popular derivation becomes a de facto standard for 9p. On 6/30/07, Kris Maglione wrote: > On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 03:54:49PM -0700, Skip Tavakkolian wrote: > >please don't use '9p:' for the uri scheme. there will likely be more > >than one 9p handler plugin for any browser. make it specific to your > >application (e.g. 'u9fs:') > > I think that this is silly. 9p is a protocol that presends a > filesystem, just like ftp, file://, smb://. Would it make sense > to use wsftp://, gnomefs://, samba://? The URI scheme should > signify the interface, not the implementation. > > -- > Kris Maglione > > When your opponent is down, kick him. > >