# request for a new URL scheme

John C. Daub (hsoi@tamu.edu)
Wed, 10 Apr 1996 11:51:30 -0500

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Reed Wade: "Re: request for a new URL scheme"
- Previous message: cvr@sbu.ac.uk: "Resolve Relative URLs"
- Next in thread: Reed Wade: "Re: request for a new URL scheme"
- Reply: Reed Wade: "Re: request for a new URL scheme"
- Maybe reply: Rich Salz: "Re: request for a new URL scheme"

    Message-Id: <316BE712.5DAA@tamu.edu>

    Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 11:51:30 -0500

    From: "John C. Daub" <hsoi@tamu.edu>

    To: uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: request for a new URL scheme

Hello!

I would like to request a new scheme for the URL format.

I know that this is not the proper address to email such
things to, but after reading rfc-1738, there was no email
address given for IANA, so I figured the only given email
address could help me out :)

What I would like to do is propose a new scheme to handle
Internet MUDs (Multi-User Dungeons/Dimensions).

Let me go through section 4 of rfc-1738.

"A new scheme may be introduced by defining a mapping onto a
conforming URL syntax"

that would be quite simple to do. To connect to Internet MUDs,
it really follows the same format at the telnet scheme (I'll
elaborate on the differences later).

a new scheme specifier of "mud" would really be the only thing
necessary to do. e.g.:

mud://some.mud.com:4000/

"URL schemes must have deomstrable utility and operability"

tho some people will always say that MUDs are a waste of time,
a waste of resources, or whatever, they are growing in popularity
and utility. This growth is due to the overall growth of the
Internet in general.

I maintain a web site about Macintosh MUDding Resources
<http://http.tamu.edu:8000/~jcd7106/netscape/mud/macmudrsrc.html>

I receive a lot of email from people about all sorts of things,
from questions about clients, to using a mud server as a
setting for a "virtual classroom".

I think due to this fact (both their growth and popularity not
only as a recreational tool but also a place for commerce, learning,
or whatever), there should be a URL scheme specifically for MUDs.

Many people use client programs to connect to MUDs. as it
lies now, most people (in setting their Internet "helper apps")
just substitute their MUD client for the telnet helper.

That could be fine, but what if someone wanted to use a telnet
program for telnetting and a mud program for mudding?

Hence, I feel there is a need for a mud URL scheme.

The mud URL scheme would be quite similar to the current telnet
scheme.

The mud URL scheme would be used to designate interactive
services to MUDs that can be accessed by the Telnet protocal.

A mud URL would take the form:

mud://<host>:<port>/

(unlike the telnet scheme, a user and password should not be necessary.
however, it might prove useful in some cases, and I do belive that
in reviewing this request, the subject of having user and password
should be put up for discussion and debate).

as specified in Section 3.1 of rfc-1738. The final "/" may be
ommited.

if :<port> is omittted, it would be hard to decide where the port
should default to since MUDs vary in their choice of port (but
at least over 1234, and most never go below 2000). If the port
was omitted, it could default to the telnet port of 23, or
perhaps a common mud port like 4000, or even just throw and error
letting the user know the URL is incomplete.

If the password and user portions are determined to have utility
and should be included in the scheme, they should be made
optional.

This URL would not designate a data object, but rather an
interactive service. Remove interactive services vary widely
in the means by which they allow remote logins; in practice,
the <user> and <password> supplied are advisory only: clients
accessing a mud URL merely advise the user of the suggested
username and password. But it might be desired to actually
use these in the mud scheme (as opposed to the telnet scheme).

perhaps it could be handy for mud clients and servers for
say a "guest" or "anonymous" login.

My personal feelings would be to have the mud URL scheme stick
as close to the telnet scheme as possible. there really
is no difference since connecting to a mud is just a telnet.

the large bonus this would add would be facility for users
in configuring their internet client programs and helper
applicaations for "seemless" surfing and less headaches.

Plus, I would like to believe in the future that the use
of MUDs would grow, not only recreationally, but also
in terms of other "more productive" things such as using them
for interactive virtual classrooms, for virutal shopping
malls or help desks, etc. And to have this URL scheme could
facilite the growth of MUDs in all of these areas allowing
for specialized MUD clients to be utilized as seemlessly
as anything else.

Thank you very much.

I hope to hear from someone soon about the ability to impliment
this scheme.

John C. Daub (aka Hsoi) | <mailto:hsoi@tamu.edu>
Grad Student, Lab Manager | <http://http.tamu.edu:8000/~jcd7106/>
Self-proclaimed Mac Guru | Department of Speech Communication
Will program for food. | Texas A&M University, USA

- Next message: Reed Wade: "Re: request for a new URL scheme"
- Previous message: cvr@sbu.ac.uk: "Resolve Relative URLs"
- Next in thread: Reed Wade: "Re: request for a new URL scheme"
- Reply: Reed Wade: "Re: request for a new URL scheme"
- Maybe reply: Rich Salz: "Re: request for a new URL scheme"