W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2012

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:36:38 -0700
Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <D1120BAF-184E-47F9-ABDB-4BBA7A63D946@apple.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Aug 13, 2012, at 2:02 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> 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.

If you want to request a reopen of the decision, then feel free to put together a Change Proposal presenting new information. I am not sure the statement above would suffice, because for example it does not explain how the web+ convention would be more problematic than the +xml convention of RFC3023. (I realize MIME types and URI schemes are not the same thing, but suffix, just like prefix, is a unique lexical position within the identifier.) A more complete explanation of the problem embedded in a Change Proposal may be sufficient.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Monday, 13 August 2012 09:36:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:26 UTC