RE: httpy://
Mark S. Miller (markm@caplet.com)
Sat, 13 May 2000 19:02:08 -0700
At 09:26 AM 5/13/00 , Tyler Close wrote:
>Mark, I remember you doing something with IANA to register pluribus. I
>remember this gave pluribus its port number, did it also give it the
>'cap' protocol identifier? What would I do if I wanted the 'httpy'
>name?
No sorry. I just requested & got a port number (3469). I never requested
"cap:" or any other protocol identifier, so I don't know.
I would like to merge proposals. Since you've already figured out how to
get the SwissNumber aspect of a cap: URI into an https: URL, and since your
httpy: proposal would take care of the VLS/VatID side as well, I don't see
any reason why Droplets and E couldn't agree in the same httpy: URI format.
There would then be the matter of the handshake: Is the designated object an
E object responding to Pluribus requests or a Droplets object responding to
CGI queries? However, rather than encoding this in the URI (cap: vs
httpy:), I'd rather find a way to do run-time negotiation that's a)
compatible with both of our constraints, and b) facilitates our future
message-level interoperability.
Speaking of which, in an earlier message you proposed to create an XML
encoding of E parse trees. As you can tell from recent traffic, this is
more relevant now than ever. Anytime you have a mapping to propose...
Cheers,
--MarkM