- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:36:38 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
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