Re: CFC, app: URI scheme

On November 1, 2013 at 7:12:08 PM, John Cowan (cowan@mercury.ccil.org) wrote:
> 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.


I'd like to close off this as it's the last remaining thing before we move the app: URL thing to LC. There are already 2 implementations and this is the last remaining bug in our tracker [1].

If it's not possible (or there is no consensus) to register the scheme, that is ok. Just want to know so I can close the bug in our tracker and have a record that an attempt to register app:// with IANA took place.  

[1] https://github.com/sysapps/app-uri/issues/24

Received on Friday, 28 March 2014 20:14:51 UTC