URL handling in SAMP message parameters

[Douglas Tody]

On Fri, 7 Oct 2011, Mark Taylor wrote:

> I suggest adding the following:
>
>   SAMP defines no formal list of which URL schemes are permitted
>   in such cases, but clients which need to dereference such URLs
>   SHOULD be capable of dealing with at least the ``http'' and ``file''
>   schemes.  ``https'', ``ftp'' and perhaps other schemes may also
>   be encountered, though clients are discouraged from sending them
>   unless there is some good reason to do so.
>
> Laurent, do you think this is OK?  Anyone else have any comments?

I don't think we should discourage use of more specialized URL schemes
(certainly not common ones such as HTTPS or FTP).  Rather just suggest
which ones *should* be supported, e.g. HTTP (for the Web) and FILE
(for local references).  This will be sufficient to suggest what to use
in most cases.

 	- Doug