if it handles 9p: scheme, it better be 9p, not some dialect based on implementer's (mis)understanding of it. browser plugins, by virtue of what they plug into, have a potential to spread fast. it will not serve anyone if a popular derivation becomes a de facto standard for 9p.
On 6/30/07, Kris Maglione <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 03:54:49PM -0700, Skip Tavakkolian wrote: >please don't use '9p:' for the uri scheme. there will likely be more >than one 9p handler plugin for any browser. make it specific to your >application (e.g. 'u9fs:') I think that this is silly. 9p is a protocol that presends a filesystem, just like ftp, file://, smb://. Would it make sense to use wsftp://, gnomefs://, samba://? The URI scheme should signify the interface, not the implementation. -- Kris Maglione When your opponent is down, kick him.
