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

Re: HTML5 proposes introduction of new family of URI schemes

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:12:29 -0500
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <85079EE8-6E1E-448D-BD54-DDDBB39C7AE9@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Noah Mendelsohn" <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com>, "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>

+1

Chris

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 19, 2012, at 2:57 PM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
wrote:

> On 2012-01-19 20:37, Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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.
> > ...
>
> Also, overloading names doesn't scale. See
>
<http://www.mnot.net/blog/2011/08/24/distributed_hungarian_notation_doesnt_work>.

>
> Best regards, Julian
>
Received on Thursday, 19 January 2012 20:14:02 GMT

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