W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ietf-w3c@w3.org > August 2012

Re: web+: enabling websites to expose services with custom URI schemes to registerProtocolHandler.

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 16:25:00 -0500
Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, public-ietf-w3c@w3.org, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
Message-Id: <480B59DE-C335-4727-ACD1-6DA1B4197AB9@mnot.net>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>

On 01/08/2012, at 1:37 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:

> Concern #2: Generalizing from my first concern, I think we've seen a
> move away from building semantics into names. RFC 6648, which deprecated
> the "x-" prefix in application protocol parameters, is one example of
> that direction. IMHO conventions like the special "Security-" prefix in
> HTTP header names are a bad practice, and the "web+" prefix in URI
> schemes follows the same path. As far as I can see, there's no strong
> justification for hardcoding here, and if folks think there is such a
> justification then it would be good to explain it in the HTML
> specification or elsewhere.

This is my primary concern. 

AFAICT this is being done primarily to avoid having an updating mechanism in the browser (which is increasingly common anyway) and perhaps a registry (or a modification to the existing one). Is there another motivation for this?

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 3 August 2012 21:25:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 3 August 2012 21:25:27 GMT