Re: Change Proposal for ISSUE-189, was: ISSUE-189: uri-web-prefix - Chairs Solicit Proposals

Julian,

It looks like your change proposal does not have a DETAILS section. It appears the details are actually present, so this is likely just a formatting error, but for clarity, could you please update your proposal?

On Jan 14, 2012, at 6:34 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2011-12-07 18:25, Paul Cotton wrote:
>> 'Prefix convention needs to be coordinated with IETF'
>> ...
> 
> Here's the Change Proposal:
> 
> SUMMARY
> 
> The specification overloads URI scheme names starting with "web+" with special semantics; however the names of URI schemes are controlled by IETF [1] and IANA, and thus coordination is needed.
> 
> In particular, in [2] the spec takes the position that registration of scheme name prefixes is possible. It is not, and thus the spec is in violation of the URI registration procedure. This disconnect should be resolved now; in particular as [1] is being revised right now anyway.
> 
> RATIONALE
> 
> Until the problem described above is resolved, the specification should not assign a special meaning to the prefix "web+". Thus, this extensibility point should be removed from the spec.
> 
> In particular:
> 
> (a) In "6.5.1.2 Custom scheme and content handlers", change
> 
> "A scheme, such as mailto or web+auth. The scheme must be compared in an ASCII case-insensitive manner by user agents for the purposes of comparing with the scheme part of URLs that they consider against the list of registered handlers."
> 
> to
> 
> "A scheme, such as mailto. The scheme must be compared in an ASCII case-insensitive manner by user agents for the purposes of comparing with the scheme part of URLs that they consider against the list of registered handlers."
> 
> Also change
> 
> "If the registerProtocolHandler() method is invoked with a scheme that is neither a whitelisted scheme nor a scheme whose value starts with the substring "web+" and otherwise contains only characters in the range U+0061 LATIN SMALL LETTER A to U+007A LATIN SMALL LETTER Z, the user agent must throw a SecurityError exception."
> 
> to
> 
> "If the registerProtocolHandler() method is invoked with a scheme that is not a whitelisted scheme, the user agent must throw a SecurityError exception."
> 
> (b) Drop "12.6 web+ scheme prefix".
> 
> 
> IMPACT
> 
> 1. Positive Effects
> 
> Coordination can happen with the standards body that controls URI scheme names.
> 
> 2. Negative Effects
> 
> The protocol handler feature looses an extension point for now.
> 
> 3. Conformance Classes Changes
> 
> Certain scheme names can not be used in registerProtocolHandler() anymore.
> 
> 4. Risks
> 
> Early implementations might ignore the specification change. That doesn't seem to be any worse than HTML5 ignoring RFC 4395.
> 
> 
> REFERENCES
> 
> [1] <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395>
> [2] <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#web-scheme-prefix>
>

Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2012 20:49:24 UTC