W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2012

Re: HTML5 proposes introduction of new family of URI schemes

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:46:11 +0100
Message-ID: <4F16E943.5050702@gmx.de>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:44 GMT