On 05/09/2008 1:57 AM, Danny Ayers wrote: > 2008/5/9 Eric Scheid <eric.scheid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> On 9/5/08 1:30 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>>> hmmm ... but we do have link@type to differentiate, no? >>> There is not always a MIME type associated with or accessible at a URI. >>> What is the MIME type for an IRC channel or an email discussion list? >> Good point. Will these link@rel=discuss be pointing directly at the >> discussion forum, or to a gateway/informational page? What is the URI of an >> email discussion list? > > > Yeah, interesting...for a mailing list there are at least three > possibilities - mailto: URI, info page, URI for direct posting to list over > HTTP. I'm interested in the first of those. > The latter two should be able to describe themselves to any agent that goes > looking - @type is redundant (though useful). I suppose with mailto: the URI > scheme plays a similar role to the media type with HTTP URIs. I don't know > of any neat machine-friendly way of saying "don't dereference this with > http" beyond parsing out the scheme. But maybe that's not a problem - if > the mailto: is displayed as a link in a browser then the browser will > typically do what's expected; any machine-oriented agent which might want to > go dereferencing should have the smarts not to go chasing mailto:s. Right, you hand that URI off to a helper application and it does the deferencing for irc:, mailto:, xmpp:, sip:, msrp:, or whatever. > As far as I'm aware the situation is the same for other forum > schemes/protocols. Correct. So I envision links like this: <link rel="discuss" href="irc://irc.freenode.net/atom"/> <link rel="discuss" href="mailto:atom-protocol@xxxxxxx"/> <link rel="discuss" href="xmpp:atompub@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"/> Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature