Hacker News Reader

Comment by MentallyRetired | Hacker News Reader

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 is what you meant.

View on HN

That 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.

Though 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)

I 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? :)

They 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.

No, it would not be served over http. Consider ftp://microsoft.com - is that also served over http?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com