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: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:40:33 -0700
To: "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "public-ietf-w3c@w3.org" <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>, "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D1E2DCA4553@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
That and the security considerations, but I suppose that the security concerns are about RegisterProtocolHandler. I don't understand or see how the 'origin' sandboxing can work, since the protocol handler registry is a shared global resource.

And what does the "web+" buy, anyway? It prevents "Web+mailto" from stepping on "mailto", but it doesn't prevent "web+mailto" 1 from stepping on "web+mailto" 2. 

Whenever there's a naming convention, there needs to be some invariant that is true for things that match, otherwise the naming convention is meaningless. So what is it that you know about "web+foo:" that you don't know about "foo:" ?


-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 7:55 AM
To: Larry Masinter
Cc: Peter Saint-Andre; Philippe Le Hegaret; Barry Leiba; Mark Nottingham; public-ietf-w3c@w3.org; Edward O'Connor
Subject: Re: web+: enabling websites to expose services with custom URI schemes to registerProtocolHandler.

On 2012-08-21 16:45, Larry Masinter wrote:
> I don't care too much about the venue question. I’m just concerned about reliability and stability of the web.
> I think the problem with web+XXX (if I understand the proposal, is there actually a document?) is that they're not URIs in any reasonable sense, won't work right if bookmarked, emailed, used as a URI anywhere else, or used as a "URI" rather than just some string that happens to be found in an href.

All we have is what the HTML5 spec says about registerProtocol.

And yes, I believe they are supposed to be real URIs, bookmarkable, and 
usable outside web browsers.

> And *that* problem is that the +XXX isn't globally unique, so there's an opportunity for conflict. f two different libraries RegisterProtocolHander with the same scheme, they'll step on each other.

HTML5 pretends these are URIs, so yes, uniqueness depends on the URI 
scheme registry.

> ...

Best regards, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2012 19:41:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:35 UTC