- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 02:10:21 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org, arun@mozilla.com
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > > > - why is a new URI scheme needed? Can't you just use urn:uuid? > > I think we'd really like to avoid creating a new scheme if we could > reuse an existing one. I know Arun was looking for an existing scheme, > but not sure if he looked at the 'urn' scheme. I think we need a new URL scheme because otherwise we're going to end up with really complicated origin rules (e.g. the origin of "urn:isbn:0123..." is a unique ID, but the origin of "urn:uuid:0123..." is the special file API origin). Reusing urn:uuid would also mean basically hijacking the urn:uuid semantics in browsers and overriding them with something else, such that, e.g., nobody could reuse this scheme in other contexts if there was any risk of the context coming into contact with brosers. And of course there's the implementation cost; APIs generally make it much easier to implement a new scheme than to implement part of the space created by the urn: scheme. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 9 October 2009 02:00:30 UTC