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 17:02:45 +0100
Cc: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <87083E45-5CAA-4F2F-9A4D-860C20881B16@berjon.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
On Jan 24, 2012, at 16:57 , Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-01-24 16:50, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> On Jan 24, 2012, at 00:29 , Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> On 2012-01-24 00:07, Robin Berjon wrote:
>>>> 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 :
>>> 
>>> I agree. But the fact that you, me, and probably almost everybody who's subscribed to this mailing list agree on this won't prevent this from happening. It didn't prevent itms: and webcal: either.
>> 
>> In this case I was talking about work that's taking place in a W3C task force that's producing Rec-track material which wasn't the case for itms: or webcal:. One can hope that somewhere along the process if the above gains traction there'll be some push-back :)
> 
> Hmm? The programmers out there who are going to define these schemes most likely aren't active in W3C or IETF...

Right, but that's a consideration different from the context in which the discussion you cite was happening, which was about the relationship between RPH and Web Intents. See http://www.w3.org/mid/4C0B7257-8E79-4C21-8406-4EC15AC1E806@jenitennison.com and following.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 16:03:24 GMT

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