OPENPGP URI PROPOSAL
mofosyne at gmail.com
Fri May 22 00:29:49 CEST 2015
So what are data uri classified as then?
Because this is based off datauri, in terms of structure. So since datauri
works, I'm inclined to think that there isn't any technical restriction to
including content within a uri context as long as the appropriate handling
software is available for the browser to call upon. (Besides the character
limits of internet explorer of 2kb. For chrome, it's more like 2MB. stack
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Robert J. Hansen <rjh at sixdemonbag.org>
> > This proposal is to provide an alternative to the openpgp block
> > messages, in the form of a uri ( e.g. `http://` ).
> The format of a URI is, generally, "mechanism:address for that
> mechanism". For instance, email has a URI scheme:
> mailto:rjh at sixdemonbag.org?subject=URI%20schemes
> FTP has one, too:
> HTTP has them:
> Filesystems have them:
> There's an ISO standard for serial numbers:
> Heck, there's even a URI scheme for Gopher.
> You'll notice that for each of them, the first element in the URI is the
> protocol by which a network resource should be obtained. Web resources
> start with "http:" to let people know to use HTTP to obtain them. Mail
> links start with "mailto:" to let people know they need an email client
> to obtain the resource (or, in that case, deliver to that resource). Etc.
> It seems to me that you're confused as to what a URI is. Your proposal
> actually *delivers content*, as opposed to telling people where they can
> find/deliver content and what protocol they should use to access it.
> There may be some good ideas in this proposal, but there seems to be
> such a misunderstanding of URIs and how they work that I'm not inclined
> to delve too deeply.
> Gnupg-users mailing list
> Gnupg-users at gnupg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gnupg-users