On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 05:15:31PM +0200, Christian W. Zuckschwerdt wrote: > Hi,
Hi, > > today I played with various schemes for consistent obex URIs. This has > been a To Do for some time now. > > I tried mixing the transport with protocol+service. (Maybe this is wrong > altogether and we need to wrap the protocol+service with the transport > -- or the other way around. I couldn't figure out a nice scheme for that > though.) > > We have these > > protocol := obex > service := push, ftp, sync (and others like bpp, bip, ...) > transport := ir(irda), bt(bluetooth), usb, net, cable > > transport specific authorities (aka target address) > ir: ? > bt: 00-11-22-33-44-55:6 | nickname:6 > usb: :1 (host is implied) > net: server:651 | 1.2.3.4:5 > cable: /dev/tty0 (but slashes wont work...) > > Reading the URI RFCs (rfc3986) it leaves us to choose from (and maybe > others?) > > obex:ftp:bt:00-11-22-33-44-55:6/some/file > obex:sync:net:my.server.tld:651/telecom/cal.vcs > > - vs - > > btobexftp://00-11-22-33-44-55:6/some/file > netobexsync://my.server.tld:651/telecom/cal.vcs > > - vs - > > obexftp+bt://00-11-22-33-44-55:6/some/file > obexsync+net://my.server.tld:651/telecom/cal.vcs > > > I could parse and use all of them. The question is which scheme to > suggest to users? > I'd prefer the last one. The first one I think is recommended by the URI > RFC but looks strange (because there is no "://" part). Also it implies > a hierarchy and the transport is not related to the service. > The second one is just clumsy and difficult to read or spell. I didn't know that the "protocol" part of URIs could be composed like you shown in the first and third examples above. Why doesn't the first example have a "//"? e.g. "obex:ftp:bt://00-11-22-33-44-55:6/some/file"? Probably this is answered somewhere in RC 3986, but I didn't read the whole document. I think the first option (with or without a "//") would work better with the existing systems of scheme delegation (such as KDE KIO slaves or the equivalent on Gnome VFS). The system could tell by just looking at the "obex" scheme name that it should use the URI handler for obex. However, it still looks weird for people used to normal "scheme://address/path" URIs. I am not sure this would be the Right Way(tm) to do this, but I can't see a better way, either. -- Eduardo
pgpKnrztyROyU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
