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

FYI http://web.lookout.net/2012/01/testing-registerprotocolhandler-and-web.html 

Has the registerProtocolHandler and web+ proposal changed since Chris did his analysis?


-----Original Message-----
From: Philippe Le Hegaret [mailto:plh@w3.org] 
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 1:40 PM
To: julian.reschke@gmx.de; Thomas Roessler
Cc: Barry Leiba; Mark Nottingham; public-ietf-w3c@w3.org
Subject: Re: web+: enabling websites to expose services with custom URI schemes to registerProtocolHandler.

On Thu, 2012-09-06 at 09:51 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-08-22 10:33, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > On 2012-08-01 19:33, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> >> Following the morning discussion, here are the links to the web+
> >> definition:
> >>
> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/system-state-and-capabilities.html#custom-handlers

> >>
> >>    look for the item on scheme (registerProtocolHandler() only)
> >>
> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/iana.html#web-scheme-prefix

> >>    Note that the Working Group is about to decide that this section needs
> >> rewrite because it must not look like an IANA registration.
> >>
> >> I also suggest to look at the rational section of a change proposal
> >> related to this:
> >>   http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Eoconnor/ISSUE-189#Rationale

> >>
> >> Philippe
> >
> > Two observations:
> >
> > a) in the meantime, the HTML WG chairs have decided to reject my CP and
> > to keep "web+" in the spec (see
> > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0115.html>)
> >
> > b) all feedback I've seen over here seems to come from people either
> > active in the IETF, or both IETF and W3C; what are the next steps to
> > actually make progress now?
> >
> > Best regards, Julian
> 
> We aren't making progress. How do we fix this?

Back on August 23, I saw two proposals:
1- get the W3C webappsec to review this.

 I can't speak for Thomas so I'll let him respond to this.

2- modularizing the HTML5 spec.

 I doubt that this idea would fly at the moment since the editors are
too busy...

Philippe