- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:46:11 +0100
- To: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
- CC: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
On 2012-01-18 16:31, Jonathan A Rees wrote: > ... > Maybe it does, but it doesn't answer my question - to what problem is > this a solution? Also how is it expected to play out in practice? What > will the new security dialogs look like and will they baffle users > like all the others do? Has anyone already implemented it? > > The list of 'legacy schemes' is a red flag for me. By what criteria is > inclusion in the list determined? Suppose the list needs to be > changed, does that require a change to the HTML specification? What is > it about 'mailto', really, that causes it to be treated differently > from 'http'? The word 'core' doesn't explain much to me. > > A more conservative design would be to have a single new web: URI > scheme with a subscheme registry (sort of link urn:), rather than lots > of new URI schemes. This wouldn't allow registering behavior for > mailto:, but might mean fewer surprises and less standards innovation. > > Not opposed, just confused. Someone has thought about this a lot, and > I don't know what they've thought. > ... I agree with all you just said :-). Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2012 15:46:48 UTC