On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Roman V Shaposhnik<r...@sun.com> wrote: > Lets assume a classical example (modified slightly to fit 9P): > a synthetic filesystem that serves images from a web cam. > The very same frame can be asked for in different formats > (.gif, .png, .pdf, etc.). Is serving > /<date>/<time>/<camera-id>/gif/frame > /<date>/<time>/<camera-id>/png/frame > ... > /<date>/<time>/<camera-id>/pdf/frame > and relying on reading > /<date>/<time>/<camera-id> > for the list of "supported" representations really better > than what HTTP content negotiation offers? >
Plan 9 does this a bit, in that you can ask a special file in /net for how to dial a certain host across all protocols. You can then pick the one that suits you, and get instructions on how to use that proto inside /net. I think it's a good use.
