- From: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 15:39:23 +1100
- To: art@ietf.org
I got the wrong group here. art@ is the current. That only shows that I'm old. Thanks to Murray for the nudge. On Wed, Feb 15, 2023, at 15:09, Martin Thomson wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2023, at 11:10, Soni L. wrote: >> BCP 190/RFC 8820 states: A Specification that defines substructure for >> URI schemes overall (e.g., a prefix or suffix for URI scheme names) MUST >> do so by modifying [BCP35] (an exceptional circumstance). >> >> However, it never mentions the "web+" prefix, which has been in use by >> web browsers for over a decade, and neither does BCP35. This seems like >> something worth discussing. Is this an appropriate venue for such >> discussion? > > It took me a while to find this, but here is the WHATWG specification > of "web+": https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#web+-scheme-prefix (the > WHATWG URL spec somehow fails to define what a scheme is other than "an > ASCII string" and only mentions web+ in an example) > > Here is the IETF registry: > https://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes/uri-schemes.xhtml > > This group is probably not the place to discuss this as it relates to a > broader topic. I've moved this to apps-discuss@. Enjoy.
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2023 04:40:01 UTC