- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:11:19 +0200
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, "michel@suignard.com" <michel@suignard.com>, "tony@att.com" <tony@att.com>, "plh@w3.org" <plh@w3.org>, "stpeter@stpeter.im" <stpeter@stpeter.im>, "adil@diwan.com" <adil@diwan.com>, "robin@berjon.com" <robin@berjon.com>, "ted.ietf@gmail.com" <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, John O'Conner <jooconne@adobe.com>, "presnick@qualcomm.com" <presnick@qualcomm.com>, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "chris@lookout.net" <chris@lookout.net>, "public-ietf-w3c@w3.org" <public-ietf-w3c@w3.org>
On 2012-09-10 14:48, Sam Ruby wrote: > On 09/10/2012 04:01 AM, Larry Masinter wrote: >> since this affects ietf and w3c, and public-ietf-w3c is publicly >> archived, could someone explain why allowing registering arbitrary >> web+xxx scheme handlers is any better than allowing arbitrary >> (unblacklisted) xxx scheme handlers? > > The following (publicly archived) email may provide useful context: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0115.html > > I particularly encourage people to look at the "Revisiting this Issue" > section at the bottom of that email. I have already stated that I think that decision was flawed (in that Maciej didn't get the "doesn't scale" argument, but then also didn't ask), but I don't want to re-open it until *this* thread (started by Philippe after all) has come to a conclusion. Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 13:12:02 UTC