Re: CFC, app: URI scheme

• From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
• Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 16:58:09 -0400
• To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
• Cc: uri@w3.org
• Message-ID: <CALcoZipUE2J75fgvAfCYvj+xpqOC3Y8pVmo+n=d-VB4wMt0p8w@mail.gmail.com>

Marcos - I'm pretty sure we had this, or a very similar conversation
back in the widget: or blob:(IIRC) scheme proposals. My position is
that if it looks like http and works like http, that you should go out
of your way to make it http (for all those "already deployed"
reasons).

It seems to me that the innovation in app: is the use of UUID in the
authority component. I agree that this is valuable in some contexts,
but wonder why that can't be used with a DNS name. So instead of;

app://c13c6f30-ce25-11e0-9572-0800200c9a66/index.html

why not this?

http://c13c6f30-ce25-11e0-9572-0800200c9a66.localhost/index.html

Received on Friday, 1 November 2013 20:58:36 UTC