URL handling in SAMP message parameters
m.b.taylor at bristol.ac.uk
Mon Oct 10 02:01:49 PDT 2011
On Sat, 8 Oct 2011, Douglas Tody wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Oct 2011, Mark Taylor wrote:
> > I suggest adding the following:
> > SAMP defines no formal list of which URL schemes are permitted
> > in such cases, but clients which need to dereference such URLs
> > SHOULD be capable of dealing with at least the ``http'' and ``file''
> > schemes. ``https'', ``ftp'' and perhaps other schemes may also
> > be encountered, though clients are discouraged from sending them
> > unless there is some good reason to do so.
> > Laurent, do you think this is OK? Anyone else have any comments?
> I don't think we should discourage use of more specialized URL schemes
> (certainly not common ones such as HTTPS or FTP). Rather just suggest
> which ones *should* be supported, e.g. HTTP (for the Web) and FILE
> (for local references). This will be sufficient to suggest what to use
> in most cases.
How about something more neutral like this:
``https'', ``ftp'' and other schemes are also permitted, but when
sending such URLs consideration should be given to whether receiving
clients are likely to be able to dereference them.
This doesn't really discourage use, but just makes it explicit that
such schemes are not disallowed, and makes it clear what the grounds
are for deciding on what is a suitable scheme to use.
Mark Taylor Astronomical Programmer Physics, Bristol University, UK
m.b.taylor at bris.ac.uk +44-117-928-8776 http://www.star.bris.ac.uk/~mbt/
More information about the apps-samp