Re: [whatwg/url] Addressing HTTP servers over Unix domain sockets (#577)

Hmm - copying the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8820
```
Abstract
...  While it is common for schemes to further
delegate their substructure to the URI's owner, publishing independent standards that mandate particular
forms of substructure in URIs is often problematic.
...
2.1. URI Schemes
...
A Specification that defines substructure for URI schemes overall (e.g., a prefix or suffix for URI scheme
names) MUST do so by modifying [BCP35] (an exceptional circumstance).
```
and, https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/bcp35
```
Abstract
This document updates the guidelines and recommendations, as well as
the IANA registration processes, for the definition of Uniform
Resource Identifier (URI) schemes. It obsoletes RFC 4395.
```
Then, by "exceptional circumstance", you meant modifying, literally, the document BCP35 itself, and not the resulting list of registered "schemes" referencing BCP35?  I stand corrected.

Still, there is the problem of modifying existing, or creating new, applications able to utilize any particular scheme.  I don't expect that my web browser actually supports the currently 374 different registered schemes available.  In fact, the trend has been for, for instance, web browsers to drop support for less commonly used schemes - no more gopher, ftp, or mailto - with some functionality being replaced by specialized scheme applications or by "groupware" suites.

I still don't agree that defining and registering a new scheme, exclusively to support html rendering from a local unix domain socket, is a good idea.  Rather, that use case does serve to illuminate a deeper systemic fault in RFC 3986.

I did rather like gopher, though, ...

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/577#issuecomment-1852356181
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <whatwg/url/issues/577/1852356181@github.com>