Proxies and extensible clients

Martin J. Duerst writes:
 > Not necessarily. With the number of URL schemes and URN namespaces
 > increasing, as well as the complexity of other things the client has
 > to do, it might be a very good implementation strategy to delegate
 > all the URL/URN resolution stuff to a *local* server (proxy).

Yes, yes!  I was going too far.  

By "client", I sometimes metaphorically mean things in the
neighborhood of the client which act as sort of extensions of the
client.  A local proxy or Java applet that understands a scheme works
just as well as, if not better than, explicitly cramming the hardcoded
understanding of all schemes into one client.

In fact, I am very interested in how a Java applet API can be done to
avoid the security concerns (accessing arbitrary new servers).  The
main problem with new URI schemes is deploying them to millions of
clients.  Even proxies would have to be educated, so auto-downloadable
code that understands new URI schemes and associated protocols would
grease the rails on the bridge to the future.

dan