W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > July 2005

Re: Apple does it again - pcast

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 10:17:55 -0700
Message-Id: <CBBAAF57-6FAC-4DC5-991B-B0E7D79F4A09@mnot.net>
Cc: <uri@w3.org>
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.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  

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:09 UTC