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

Re: fb: URIs?

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:37:36 -0500
To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Cc: uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF920E2F07.D1A21EA5-ON852576D4.0013940D-852576D4.0013E8C3@lotus.com>
Erik Wilde writes:

> would it help at all to have X-... uri schemes that analogous to other 
> named things on the internet by definition always would be local and 
> context-specific?

I am somewhat doubtful of the notion of being "local and 
context-specific".  If they really are, then why is it important that they 
be URIs at all?  Why not make up some other handle name like "iPhone 
launch key" that would represent a completely disjoint identification 
space?  I suspect it's because these things really won't be local:  the 
will wind up on the same Web pages that link ordinary resources.  They 
will be emailed to other people with instructions like "click this link to 
see my facebook page". 

I could be wrong, but my intuition is: if these are really, truly local to 
the individual phone, then they don't need to be URIs.  If they're 
actually meant for linking from Web pages or other public communication, 
then they're not local. 

Noah

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
Sent by: uri-request@w3.org
02/23/2010 07:04 PM
 
        To:     uri@w3.org
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        Re: fb: URIs?


hello.

> The point is, even using schemes like this internally can, indirectly, 
> divide the Web.  There's the Web of software that believes fb is first 
> unregistered, and then for fruitbaskets, and there is the web of 
software 
> that directs fb references to Facebook applications.  I don't think you 
> can have it both ways.  If fb is to be deployed, it should be 
registered, 
> I think.  If very many systems like iPhone follow this model, we're 
going 
> to have a big mess with tens or hundreds of thousands of schemes 
> registered for very limited purposes.

would it help at all to have X-... uri schemes that analogous to other 
named things on the internet by definition always would be local and 
context-specific? at least, somebody like facebook then could, if they 
wanted to, choose X-fb://... URIs and it would be clear that those were 
URIs which should be handled with care and in a certain context... it 
would be similar to tag:fb://... , which in an ideal world probably is 
what facebook should have done in the first place...

cheers,

dret.
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 03:38:18 UTC

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