Re: The web+ URI scheme prefix

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+":  (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: 
> 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