W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > November 2013

Re: CFC, app: URI scheme

From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 19:12:06 -0400
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <20131101231206.GC3195@mercury.ccil.org>
Mark Baker scripsit:

> 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).

There are two ways to do that.  The user could be required to run an HTTP
server, which is known to be problematic, especially as there may be and
typically are multiple apps on the platform, which would have to ensure
that their uses of the server cooperate properly without collision.
By contrast, app: requires only a shared static file mapping UUIDs
to installed pathnames (though other implementations are possible,
of course).

In the alternative, the user agent would be required to detect this as a
special case of the http: scheme in which a server is not to be contacted.
The difficulty there is that browsers are not the only relevant
kind of HTTP user agents, and *all* of them would need to be updated.
It's obvious to a downlevel user agent that it can't handle an app: URI;
it is not obvious that it can't handle an http: URI with a magical format.

John Cowan   cowan@ccil.org  http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Most languages are dramatically underdescribed, and at least one is
dramatically overdescribed.  Still other languages are simultaneously
overdescribed and underdescribed.  Welsh pertains to the third category.
        --Alan King
Received on Friday, 1 November 2013 23:12:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:16 UTC