W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > January to March 2005


From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:31:58 +0000
Message-ID: <421C5B9E.5060400@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Cc: Najib Tounsi <ntounsi@emi.ac.ma>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, Matitiahu Allouche <matial@il.ibm.com>, Jony Rosenne <rosennej@qsm.co.il>, www-international@w3.org

Martin Duerst wrote:

>  >Note that I am already forced to type "http://" (though it's not the 
> same problem).
> Yes. It's not yet clear how that problem will get solved.
> Maybe browsers will offer a little drop-down menu in the
> language of the user interface, maybe things will work
> out more or less because everything is mostly HTTP anyway
> (on billboards,... one rarely if ever sees ftp://, and
> usually also http:// is just left off), or maybe there
> will be a new standards effort.
> However, the issue at hand in this case is quite different
> in various ways. Different domain names in different scripts
> are just different domains. Different URI schemes in different
> scripts would identify the same URI scheme. This creates
> quite different issues for interoperability.

Drifting ....

It would in principle be possible to allow multiple aliases for a scheme 
name. Of course, there already are sixteen ways of writing http:


one could have new ways of writing this, and https: and ftp: mailto: 
..., not sure how many are really needed, so that all web users can 
write the URLs of interest to them without needing to use an alien script.

This would differ from introducing either new schemes or new protocols, 
merely new aliases for old schemes.

Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2005 10:34:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:40:50 UTC