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

Re: HTML5 proposes introduction of new family of URI schemes

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:37:05 -0500
Message-ID: <4F1870E1.8020600@arcanedomain.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
CC: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>


On 1/19/2012 11:41 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> Well except that there are quite a few developers, yours truly included,
> who really want this functionality. In fact, as indicated earlier, I
> find that some parts of it don't go anywhere near far enough.

Robin: I'd be grateful if you could explain why using URI templates, or 
something similar, to pattern match on existing URIs isn't preferable to 
matching on URIs matching a special "web+" pattern.  The drawbacks to web+ 
seem to include:

* Encourages or even requires people to use new schemes, when other schemes 
might otherwise have been applicable (seems to be at odds with the 
admonition in AWWW that creation of new URI schemes is strongly discouraged 
[1]).

* Seems to put the decision as to what client will be used in the wrong 
place, I.e. with the person or organization that coins the identifier. It 
should IMO generally be possible to have both Web and native apps handle a 
given identifier, to change one's mind after the fact, etc. If documents 
are full of links to "web+xxx:....." URIs, then lots of existing mechanism 
on the Web doesn't work with them (useless in agents that don't know of the 
new scheme), and you've committed to a naming convention just because, at 
this point in time, you think people will be using Web-based implementations.

Why not URI templates for both the registrations, and the white/black 
lists? Then you could use existing schemes like http, and things like 
mailto wouldn't be special cases.

Noah
Received on Thursday, 19 January 2012 19:37:30 GMT

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