Re: fb: URIs?

hello.

Graham Klyne wrote:
> Erik Wilde wrote:
>> 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.

the problem with that is that tools might not like that. i guess the 
"misuse" of URI schemes is caused by convenience in the first place, and 
if you violate the technology that is chosen to make life easier, then 
it's very likely that a lot of tools will complain, and then you gain 
not all that much. or even worse, you may start "improving" the tools to 
also work with the invalid, proprietary "syntax". i don't think that 
would be such a good way to go.

cheers,

dret.

Received on Monday, 1 March 2010 01:26:07 UTC