# Re: Deployment of new URI schemes (was Re: request for a new URL scheme)

ZB Lucas (zblucas@semaphore.com)
Thu, 11 Apr 1996 17:34:06 -0700 (PDT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Michael Seaton: "Multipart Documents"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "Re: request for a new URL scheme"
- In reply to: Daniel LaLiberte: "Deployment of new URI schemes (was Re: request for a new URL scheme)"
- Next in thread: Larry Masinter: "Re: request for a new URL scheme"

    Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 17:34:06 -0700 (PDT)

    From: ZB Lucas <zblucas@semaphore.com>

    To: Daniel LaLiberte <liberte@ncsa.uiuc.edu>

    Subject: Re: Deployment of new URI schemes (was Re: request for a new URL scheme)

    In-Reply-To: <9604102200.AA21360@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu>

    Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960411172114.217A-100000@semaphore.semaphore.com>

> Browsers should allow users to specify proxies that handle specific
> URI schemes, possibly new schemes. Netscape, for one, still assumes
> that any URI with a scheme it does not know about is a relative
> URL, and it has no way to specify proxies to handle specific new
> schemes. Mosaic for X has fixed these problems, partly at my
> insistence.

right now the win95 shell supports any sort of URL protocol. if you do a
ShellExec on a valid URL, the shell will look in the registry for a
handler of that protocol. and then pass it off to them. both NS2.0 and
MSIE take advantage of this. it also permits apps to register themselves
as handlers for a MIME type.

this means that a user can go to the start-run menu and enter
"http://www.home.com" and clik OK and it will activate the correct app
and display the desired page.

MSIE is smart enough that whenever it runs across a protocol that it
doesnt recognize, it always does a shellexec to see if anybody on the
system knows how to handle it.

so if someone wanted to, they could easily implement a link like
"mud:bestmud.com:8080" in a web page and if someone were running MSIE on
win95 it would passed off to the mud client. i believe there is even an
option to pass the URL with or without the protocol prefixed.

{zeke}

- Next message: Michael Seaton: "Multipart Documents"
- Previous message: Larry Masinter: "Re: request for a new URL scheme"
- In reply to: Daniel LaLiberte: "Deployment of new URI schemes (was Re: request for a new URL scheme)"
- Next in thread: Larry Masinter: "Re: request for a new URL scheme"