On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Andy Parkins <andypark...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip] > > You've been unfair, the equivalent of your "u...@authority.tld" is > "https://authority.tld/user"; or "https://user.authority.tld/"; or > "https://google.com/bitcoin/user"; or any of an infinite number of other > variations that _I_ as the mapper get to choose rather than whoever wrote > the BIP; all of which are arguably no less "elegant" than that simple email. > > There is no equivalent in the other direction though. For someone who > want's to supply the TX to their mapping server... where does it go in > "u...@authority.tld"? actually there are many differences. Specifying a standard using a HTTP(s) transport for a look-up isn't something that has been done in the PATH portion of the URI and that I was pointing out that there is *NO* RFC that specifies such for a look-up provide the inverse of many protocol specifications that did *not* choose that methodology. What has happened is various schemes are specified, developed and deployed. I am sure you are familure with many. sip:// ftp:// etc:// many are described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI_scheme NAPTR records (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAPTR_record) are another area that deserves research for those that desire URI schemes. Understand that I am mearly advocating that as a group this work be done in standards development process, and that IBANN is one such effort. -rick ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn Windows Azure Live! Tuesday, Dec 13, 2011 Microsoft is holding a special Learn Windows Azure training event for developers. It will provide a great way to learn Windows Azure and what it provides. You can attend the event by watching it streamed LIVE online. Learn more at http://p.sf.net/sfu/ms-windowsazure _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
