- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:54:30 +0200
- To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 10:38:44 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > The downsides of inventing a URI scheme include: > > 1) URIs using this scheme will not parse into components properly (the > feed: scheme has this problem) > 2) The scheme really should be registered through IANA, which will be a > bureaucratic hassle > 3) IANA would probably be hesitant, because user-private: does not > describe a new resource access method, it just describes what headers > you want to send, which in http is separate from the URI > 4) It is in fact a valid point that this violates the design of URI > schemes > 5) Code throughout the system will have to know to special-case this URI > scheme to treat it as equivalent to the corresponding HTTP URI I strongly agree that if we do this at all we should not do it through a new URI scheme. If we do this something like Hixie's original proposal makes more sense to me (and maybe allowing it to be influenced by a flag): http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2008May/0007.html -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Monday, 16 June 2008 14:54:41 UTC