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

Re: fb: URIs?

From: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 17:56:29 +0000
Message-ID: <4B8AAE4D.1070707@ninebynine.org>
To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
CC: uri@w3.org
Erik Wilde wrote:
> 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 seems to me that the developers concerned would do better to introduce a 
syntactically *invalid* form of scheme name for internal use (e.g. ~fb: ?), 
rather than bless the local practice in a standard.  This way, there's no 
question of confusion caused by leakage to into the wild.

AIUI, the old X- conventions were intended for experimental rather than strictly 
local use, and have generally been found unsatisfactory for this purpose for 
similar reasons to those that raise concerns about use of fb:.

#g
Received on Sunday, 28 February 2010 18:25:32 UTC

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