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.

I guess I may be thinking of a different implementation model than
is actually in use.  The "sensible" way of handling a new scheme is
to introduce a new handler for the scheme within a registration table.
So, you register a handler for the generic "path" scheme which looks
at the URL, checks for "path:/com/microsoft/" and says not implemented
if no match, otherwise it drops that part of the identifier and uses
the rest to do whatever application-specific thing you wanted to do.

I don't see how that is any different for deployed software than defining
separate handlers for each scheme.  Is it impossible for one handler
to call another, or is there some other constraint that I just don't
know about?  I'd look at the source, but ...

OTOH, I have never been concerned about protecting the scheme namespace
from collisions.  They tend to be temporary phenomena.

....Roy