Re: CFC, app: URI scheme

Good point, Mark, and besides isn't a UUID a "dotless domain" ?
(now prohibited) http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-13aug13-en.htm#1
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 11/1/13, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote:

 Subject: Re: CFC, app: URI scheme
 To: "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com>
 Cc: uri@w3.org
 Date: Friday, November 1, 2013, 3:58 PM
 
 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 21:32:41 UTC