Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-189 uri-prefix

On 2012-08-05 22:03, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> ...
> == Architectural issues:
> Survey commenters objected to the architectural design of the web+
> prefix approach to extending valid URI schemes for
> registerProtocolHandler. One wrote, of the "Disambiguate the web+
> prefix" proposal:
>      It does not address the problem of overloading the naming of URI
>      schemes with semantics. Doing this in general is problematic as it
>      doesn't scale; once a prefix is defined this extension point is
>      essentially taken.
> The only specific problem identified was "doesn't scale". However,
> it was not explained what scaling means in this regard, nor was evidence
> provided that the feature doesn't scale. Other aspects of Internet
> protocols and the Web platform are based on name registries of various
> sorts, so some evidence would need to be provided for why it would be
> a problem in this case.
> ...

I thought that was obvious. It doesn't "scale" in that each URI scheme 
name has a *single* prefix, thus what HTML5 tries to do here can not be 
done again by another spec.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Monday, 13 August 2012 09:03:05 UTC