Re: URI scheme best practices

Hello Bob,

Mykyta is correct that the IRI WG is now working on an update for 4395. 
I'm copying that mailing list and suggest that we move discussion there.

Registering company/application/operation-specific URIs is definitely 
not current practice, but using them is quite a bit in practice on 
mobile Apple systems.

One thing I think you can do is to submit a registration and see how it 
goes. If we have lots of such registration requests, that may finally 
get Apple to rethink things and find a better way to start applications.

Of course, I hope you also complain loudly to Apple. On this issue, they 
definitely deserve it.

Regards,    Martin.

On 2011/10/08 23:03, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> Hi Bob,
> The IRI working group of IETF is now working on 4395bis, an the WG is
> considering the questions whether to leave or not the provisions you
> were guided by. That was me who raised that issue, and my justification
> is that there was no evidence of any attempts to register the scheme
> like you're proposing. So, I'd like you didn't consider such provisions
> as current practices, since there has been no practice at all with this
> respect.
> Thanks,
> Mykyta Yevstifeyev
> 07.10.2011 19:07, Bob Van Zant wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>> I've been reading through RFC 4395 and some of the mailing list
>> archives. We're working on iOS and Android apps that we'd like to have
>> be able to respond to URIs in the mail applications of each of those
>> devices. For example, if we generate a password reset email and send
>> it to the user and they click on that link in their mail application
>> we'd like that to fire up our app instead of the web browser.
>> I recognize that this is a fairly standard thing to do and in reading
>> through what must be a somewhat memorable thread (fb: URIs?
>> I see that
>> this has been beaten around a bit.
>> Based on the fb: URIs thread I get the feeling that people wish we
>> could register with iOS and Android to have our app handle URIs of the
>> form I'm pretty sure that
>> this is not possible?
>> Given that we don't think we can use http and given RFC 4395 we're
>> planning to use a scheme com-eventbrite-attendee: and generate URIs
>> like com-eventbrite-attendee:resetpassword?parameters&go&here
>> Is this the current best practice? Is the intent of 4395 that we
>> attempt registration of the scheme com-eventbrite-attendee:? I'm happy
>> to go through the process described in section 5 of 4395 but the
>> extremely tiny URI scheme registration list almost makes me think that
>> IANA doesn't want us in there.
>> Thanks,
>> Bob

Received on Monday, 10 October 2011 03:29:07 UTC