- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:10:33 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > 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 I detailed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0116.html why I think doing requests twice is a bad idea, but i would be ok with introducing a flag. / Jonas
Received on Monday, 16 June 2008 17:12:05 UTC