- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:52:48 +0900
- To: Chris Weber <chris@lookout.net>
- CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "PUBLIC-IRI@W3.ORG" <PUBLIC-IRI@w3.org>
On 2012/01/16 15:55, Chris Weber wrote: > On 1/14/2012 5:16 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >> 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. >> > <hat type="individual" /> > > Is this the first example of a scheme prefix like "web+" overloading the > scheme name? See Julian's reply. > I'm not clear on the history, use cases, and the impetus > behind "web+". Have a look at the www-tag@w3.org mailing list (archives at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/), in particular at the thread starting at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2012Jan/thread.html#msg28. > Generally speaking, it seems that a great deal of care > has been put into the registration process for scheme names, and that > the "web+" prefix sidesteps all of that, albeit limited to the prefix. I don't think there is any intention to sidestep the registration process. Future schemes, whether with or without the web+ prefix, would still go though the same registration process. > Surely there's good reason for due diligence in the scheme registration > process, right? And speaking as someone who does a lot of Web > application penetration testing, one of my first thoughts when I saw > this, with eyebrows raised really high, was 'let the fun begin'... Can you be a bit more specific about the dangers you see? Regards, Martin.
Received on Friday, 20 January 2012 10:53:33 UTC