3 ms·
That's not what protocols are for, though. It would still be served over http, so what you're looking to replace is actually the world wide web, or www. In othe
by MentallyRetired 9y ago
That's not what protocols are for, though. It would still be served over http, so what you're looking to replace is actually the world wide web, or www. In other words, http://app.microsoft.com http://app.microsoft.com is what you meant.
- ehnto 9y agoThat doesn't have to be true. An app protocol could have, for one example, a structured always open connection and a new set of useful verbs/actions that are more conducive to apps. It could tell the browser to use a different rendering path with a different more comprehensive base UI set for another example. These are already possible by retrofitting existing technology but the question being asked is what would a reimagined, more app friendly web platform look like.
- wongarsu 9y agoThough in practice, subdomains are rarely used in that sense anymore (both www. and ftp. are declining in usage), while the protocol is used to determine the program that should handle the request. Maybe https+app://microsoft.com is better? (plus signs are valid in uri schemes)
- EGreg 9y agoI am not so sure that all protocol schemes require that the transfer be over http. How about if I type ftp://example.com in the browser? Or https? Or gopher? :)
- MentallyRetired 9y agoThey don't because those are different protocols. I'm assuming he means SPAs/PWAs/hell even XUL, and not some kind of byte code application.
- hossbeast 9y agoNo, it would not be served over http. Consider ftp://microsoft.com - is that also served over http?