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

Re: HTML5 proposes introduction of new family of URI schemes

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:07:06 +0100
Cc: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <BF2BF1B9-408F-401E-8019-D659006A073A@berjon.com>
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Hey Jeni,

On Jan 23, 2012, at 23:46 , Jeni Tennison wrote:
> Re-raising Graham Klyne's point: does anyone know how the web+ URI schemes are going to fit with the Web Intents work which I believe are planned to be part of HTML.next? They address basically the same goals, but with different mechanisms; the Web Intents FAQ [1] makes some comparisons.

I'd answer you question were it not that it is currently being actively discussed in the Web Intents Task Force. See the thread:

    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-intents/2012Jan/thread.html#msg24

While I'm still reserving final judgement based on inputs to the discussion, my current idea is that conflating RPH and WI doesn't fly:

    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-intents/2012Jan/0052.html

My sense is that these two things are more different than people seem to think they are. RPH is "I can handle this type of URI", WI is a dual system consisting of "I can handle these operations on these types of objects" and "Give me a service that can perform this action on that object".

> Are we likely to end up with both being supported within browsers and developers having to choose which to use?

I don't think so. At this point no one has shown that the two are equivalent, and examples attempting to prove that they are use schemes like "web+imageedit" (as in web+imageedit:example.org/unicorn.png) which I'm thinking ought to make anyone who cares about web architecture scream rather loudly :)

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Monday, 23 January 2012 23:07:33 GMT

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