Re: [Uri-review] ssh URI

[Kristof Zelechovski <[e-mail]>]

David, you do not see a need to define a new URI scheme for anything, do
you?.  If I you do, please enumerate the requirements for a protocol that
would save it from the http black hole.
SSH is not a new protocol, and the "adoption rate" does not depend on the
URI; it is an agreement between the owner and the user that counts.  This
agreement already provides all technical information the user needs, and
explaining it over HTTP would not be useful.
And how would you persuade the Web browser to send an HTTP SSH URI to an
external handler instead of navigating to it?  (Think Internet Explorer, for
clarity.)
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of David Booth
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 7:02 PM
To: Steve Suehring
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] ssh URI

I don't see a need to define a new URI scheme for this.  You can just
define an http URI prefix for this purpose, as described in
http://dbooth.org/2006/urn2http/

Furthermore, as Graham Klyne suggested during a similar discussion
earlier, "an HTTP URI can also retrieve a protocol [handler]
implementation"
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2009Sep/0029.html
This could dramatically improve the adoption rate of a new protocol.

David Booth