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

Re: web+ and registerProtocolHandler

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:11:19 +0200
Message-ID: <504DE6F7.2040908@gmx.de>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, 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 2012-09-10 14:48, Sam Ruby wrote:
> 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.

I have already stated that I think that decision was flawed (in that 
Maciej didn't get the "doesn't scale" argument, but then also didn't 
ask), but I don't want to re-open it until *this* thread (started by 
Philippe after all) has come to a conclusion.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 13:12:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 10 September 2012 13:12:02 GMT