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

Re: web+ and registerProtocolHandler

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:48:41 -0400
Message-ID: <504DE1A9.9060400@intertwingly.net>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
CC: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, "michel@suignard.com" <michel@suignard.com>, "tony@att.com" <tony@att.com>, "plh@w3.org" <plh@w3.org>, "stpeter@stpeter.im" <stpeter@stpeter.im>, "adil@diwan.com" <adil@diwan.com>, "robin@berjon.com" <robin@berjon.com>, "ted.ietf@gmail.com" <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, John O'Conner <jooconne@adobe.com>, "presnick@qualcomm.com" <presnick@qualcomm.com>, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "chris@lookout.net" <chris@lookout.net>, "public-ietf-w3c@w3.org" <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>
On 09/10/2012 04:01 AM, Larry Masinter wrote:
> since this affects ietf and w3c, and public-ietf-w3c is publicly
> archived, could someone explain why allowing registering arbitrary
> web+xxx scheme handlers is any better than allowing arbitrary
> (unblacklisted) xxx scheme handlers?

The following (publicly archived) email may provide useful context:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0115.html

I particularly encourage people to look at the "Revisiting this Issue" 
section at the bottom of that email.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 12:49:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 10 September 2012 12:49:09 GMT