RE: DNS Draft

The reason I didn't do it that way is that neither Netscape nor
Microsoft can support it properly. Both systems do registration based on
the protocol name, not on the path. As such we would have a perfectly
reasonable standard that doesn't solve the problem posed by already
deployed code. The way the problem is being dealt with at the moment is
that people are just making up protocol names wily nilly without any
kind of registration or namespace avoidance measure. I figured this spec
was a "better than nothing" attempt to deal with the problem.
		Yaron
PS I will be re-submitting the draft with the name changed from "DNS" to
something else like " andns" for Andns is not DNS. =)

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Roy T. Fielding [SMTP:[email protected]]
> Sent:	Friday, August 29, 1997 8:27 AM
> To:	Yaron Goland
> Cc:	'[email protected]'
> Subject:	Re: DNS Draft 
> 
> >   This document proposes mapping DNS names into the URL scheme space
> for
> >   the purpose of preventing namespace collisions amongst URL schemes
> 
> >   whose syntax and functionality are not appropriate for
> standardization.
> 
> Wouldn't it be easier to just define one new scheme in which the path
> name hierarchy was defined by DNS?  For example,
> 
>     dns:/com/microsoft/somewhere
> 
> has the same characteristics you describe, but without the messy
> syntax.
> 
> Remember the "path" URI?  Yet another example of a good idea doomed
> by the quest for the holy grail URN.
> 
> ....Roy