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

Re: web+ and registerProtocolHandler

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:27:22 +0200
Message-ID: <505C24EA.2070201@gmx.de>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, 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 2012-09-21 10:22, Robin Berjon wrote:
> 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.

Well.

We're talking about a HTML spec feature that is very controversial, as 
was the chair's decision to keep it.

It's up to the WG to decide what's in and what's not. The WG (through 
Philippe) has asked for feedback over here, and there was feedback.

At this point, this feedback should be forwarded to the WG.

Asking to talk to implementers sounds like moving goal posts.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 21 September 2012 08:28:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 08:28:01 GMT