W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > February 2010

Re: fb: URIs?

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:23:23 -0500
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>
cc: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@gmail.com>, Thomas Fruin <thomasfruin@mac.com>, "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>, David Recordon <davidrecordon@facebook.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Message-ID: <25087.1266427403@waldron>

> And put it in the registry no one reads? If you want to stop people
> from abusing the system, you need to either fix the system or
> accommodate their use case (i.e. work with them, not against them).

It looks like the problem is that systems are dispatching on the scheme
name instead of on the longest leading substring.  If they did the
latter, then people could use http: or tag: URIs for these apps. 

Specifically, we hear that

  http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=4
and
 fb://profile/4

are semantically the same [1].  If the systems everywhere could dispatch
on "http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=" as easily as they dispatch
on "fb:", it seems like the technical side of this problem might go
away.

(The social part -- people liking to make up URI schemes for personal
reasons -- would remain.  I doubt that's the real problem, though.)

Has anyone seen systems which dispatch on leading prefixes?  Does anyone
see a problem with that design?  It would be more confusing in the case
where no handler is installed, since it could fall back to another
handler, but I think in general that would be useful.

    -- Sandro

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2010Feb/0018.html
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 17:23:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:14 UTC