W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2010

[whatwg] URN or protocol attribute

From: Brett Zamir <brettz9@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:44:07 +0800
Message-ID: <4B9858F7.9070303@yahoo.com>
On 3/11/2010 10:31 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010, Brett Zamir wrote:
>    
>>> Is there really a need for a more dedicated mechanism? It's not clear
>>> that there is much pent-up demand for this.
>>>        
>> There wasn't a lot of pent up demand for the web itself either ("why
>> would people or companies want to link to other people's sites?"); if
>> people aren't able to use a feature or know of the concept, they might
>> not think of asking for it.
>>      
> That's true, but we only have so many resources, so we have to prioritise.
> Things that have pent-up demand are typically more important. :-)
>
> I would recommend following a pattern somewhat like the Web's initial
> development: create a proof of concept, and convince people that it's what
> they want. That's the best way to get a feature adopted. This is described
> in more detail in the FAQ:
>
>     http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Is_there_a_process_for_adding_new_features_to_a_specification.3F
>    

Ok, fair enough. I think I'll try that as a browser extension, as well 
as possibly the other idea of a shared database API which I think has 
the potential to become an even more powerful feature (e.g., a local 
calendar to which any site could offer to add events and be viewed on 
the web or in a browser extension)... But there still may be some things 
(like an official auxiliary world language!) which can only show their 
real benefits (and potential demand) when implemented across the board...

Brett
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2010 18:44:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:21 UTC