- From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 16:11:33 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "PUBLIC-IRI@W3.ORG" <PUBLIC-IRI@w3.org>
My personal opinion: Neither RFC 4395 nor 4395bis provide a possibility to perform such sorts of registrations. This is not a URI scheme but a prefix thereof - theoretically, if this is register, de-facto an infinite range of scheme names is registered; this is really not what authors of RFC 4395 wanted their document to serve for -, and additionally I can hardly find what should schemes starting with "web+" stand for save "The scheme is expected to be used in the context of Web applications."; furthermore, this is impossible to understand how should Web pages register such scheme names (this is in Sec. considerations). I support Julian's position on this. Mykyta Yevstifeyev 2012/1/14 Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>: > Hi there, > > ref: <https://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/189> > > HTML5 introduces a naming convention for URI scheme *names*; see > <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#web-scheme-prefix>: > >> 12.6 web+ scheme prefix >> >> This section describes a convention for use with the IANA URI scheme >> registry. It does not itself register a specific scheme. [RFC4395] >> >> URI scheme name >> Schemes starting with the four characters "web+" followed by one or >> more letters in the range a-z. >> Status >> permanent >> URI scheme syntax >> Scheme-specific. >> URI scheme semantics >> Scheme-specific. >> Encoding considerations >> All "web+" schemes should use UTF-8 encodings were relevant. >> Applications/protocols that use this URI scheme name >> Scheme-specific. >> Interoperability considerations >> The scheme is expected to be used in the context of Web applications. >> Security considerations >> Any Web page is able to register a handler for all "web+" schemes. As >> such, these schemes must not be used for features intended to be core >> platform features (e.g. network transfer protocols like HTTP or FTP). >> Similarly, such schemes must not store confidential information in their >> URLs, such as usernames, passwords, personal information, or confidential >> project names. >> Contact >> Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> >> Author/Change controller >> Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> >> References >> W3C > > > I'm in the process of writing a Change Proposal asking for a removal of this > feature. In the meantime, it would be useful if the WG came up with > "official" feedback on overloading the scheme name. > > Best regards, Julian >
Received on Saturday, 14 January 2012 14:12:21 UTC