Re: web+: enabling websites to expose services with custom URI schemes to registerProtocolHandler.

On 01/08/2012, at 1:37 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:

> Concern #2: Generalizing from my first concern, I think we've seen a
> move away from building semantics into names. RFC 6648, which deprecated
> the "x-" prefix in application protocol parameters, is one example of
> that direction. IMHO conventions like the special "Security-" prefix in
> HTTP header names are a bad practice, and the "web+" prefix in URI
> schemes follows the same path. As far as I can see, there's no strong
> justification for hardcoding here, and if folks think there is such a
> justification then it would be good to explain it in the HTML
> specification or elsewhere.

This is my primary concern. 

AFAICT this is being done primarily to avoid having an updating mechanism in the browser (which is increasingly common anyway) and perhaps a registry (or a modification to the existing one). Is there another motivation for this?

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Friday, 3 August 2012 21:25:27 UTC