- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 10:17:55 -0700
- To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Cc: <uri@w3.org>
Well, clue is usually embodied in the process as a review cycle; unfortunately, doing so will just make people more likely to avoid the process (as Apple has done anyway). In the Header work, we actually split things up into a registry (whose contents are reviewed; i.e., they go through IETF or other open standards process) and a repository (which is informational only, and unreviewed). Would that approach be appropriate here? Ultimately, I think the answer will be vendor education; there are relatively few entities writing widely-used frameworks for URI resolution. On 17/07/2005, at 9:51 AM, Larry Masinter wrote: > It should be possible, under the proposed new process, for someone > else > to register a scheme if the "owner" doesn't do so. I don't know > if we should encourage this more? There aren't any 'clue sticks' > written into the process. Should there be? > > Larry > > > >> According to <http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php? >> story=20050702074138201&lsrc=osxh>, Apple has introduced a 'pcast' >> URI scheme, to allow Safari (and presumably other browsers that use >> the system's HTTP libraries) to dispatch requests for 'podcasts' to >> iTunes 4.9. I did some trivial testing, and it seems this is indeed >> the case. >> >> A few years back, they introduced 'itms' to do a similar thing for >> links to the iTunes Music Store. >> >> Can someone please hit Apple with a clue stick? Preferably, a >> clue-by-four? >> >> -- >> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ >> >> >> > > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 17 July 2005 17:18:18 UTC