- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 20:56:19 +0200
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:53:27 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> Since this is Last Call I thought I should mention that I much prefer >> the WHATWG wiki approach to extensions over requiring people to use an >> overly long URI. It both provides people with a short token and >> provides other people with a clue as to what is happening in the world. >> ... > > The draft does not require people to use URIs at all. There's a registry > for tokens, just like in the HTML5 proposal. The only difference is that > the registry lives somewhere else, and the registry procedure has > different requirements. The requirements will just lead to people using URIs I think (or rather, completely ignoring the registry as there was no registry practice so far) just like people use x-something all the time rather than vnd.something or register something more appropriate. Barriers to registries need to be pretty low I think. E.g. due to high registry requirements for media types font files will be sniffed until eternity. JavaScript/ECMAScript has about six media types and were only registered due to a dedicated individual, not because the ECMAScript standardization comittee particuarly cared one way or another. Same for URI schemes. You're better of on Wikipedia than at IANA. :/ -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Sunday, 26 July 2009 18:57:03 UTC