- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:22:14 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, "michel@suignard.com" <michel@suignard.com>, "tony@att.com" <tony@att.com>, "plh@w3.org" <plh@w3.org>, "adil@diwan.com" <adil@diwan.com>, "ted.ietf@gmail.com" <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, "John O'Conner" <jooconne@adobe.com>, "presnick@qualcomm.com" <presnick@qualcomm.com>, "chris@lookout.net" <chris@lookout.net>, "public-ietf-w3c@w3.org" <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>
On Sep 19, 2012, at 20:51 , Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > On 19/09/2012, at 1:10 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote: >> On Sep 18, 2012, at 22:39 , Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >>> If I were trying to solve this problem, I'd be allowing people to register handlers for link *relations*, not schemes; has that come up at all? After all, OpenID is already coordinated through relations… >> >> Maybe I'm missing something, but this is intended to be system-wide. How do you convey a link relation in email for instance? Or over Twitter? > > Understood, but what's the use case? > > I'm not saying that registerProtocolHandler isn't necessary; if somebody wants to send a telnet: link in Twitter and have their favourite Web telnet client open, that's cool. > > What I am saying is that using the URI scheme to indicate *any* new protocol -- when by "protocol" you mean a coordination of HTTP, like OAuth or OpenID -- isn't what URI schemes are really for, and I have concerns about where this kind of design will take us (when anybody coming up with a new kind of "web service" decides to mint a URI scheme to identify it). Oh, if you're talking about that side of the problem, then sure. I'm not convinced that having the ability to register link relations handlers would actually work (but I'd be happy to see examples). If your point is that the number of innovations that ought to require a new URI scheme is small, then I agree. If you think that that makes the case against web+ then I think you have a point. But as Adam keeps saying, you're probably convincing the wrong people here. You need to speak to the implementers, and to the developers who wish to rely on such features. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Friday, 21 September 2012 08:22:42 UTC