W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2012

FW: web+: enabling websites to expose services with custom URI schemes to registerProtocolHandler.

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:18:32 -0700
To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D1E2DDD5FE7@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
FYI, on "web+" URI scheme convention

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:stpeter@stpeter.im] 
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 9:07 AM
To: julian.reschke@gmx.de
Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret; Barry Leiba; Mark Nottingham; public-ietf-w3c@w3.org
Subject: Re: web+: enabling websites to expose services with custom URI schemes to registerProtocolHandler.

Hash: SHA1

On 8/22/12 2:33 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2012-08-01 19:33, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
>> Following the morning discussion, here are the links to the web+ 
>> definition:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/system-state-and-capabilities.html#custom-handlers

look for the item on scheme (registerProtocolHandler() only)
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/iana.html#web-scheme-prefix Note that
>> the Working Group is about to decide that this section needs 
>> rewrite because it must not look like an IANA registration.
>> I also suggest to look at the rational section of a change
>> proposal related to this: 
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Eoconnor/ISSUE-189#Rationale

>> Philippe
> Two observations:
> a) in the meantime, the HTML WG chairs have decided to reject my CP
> and to keep "web+" in the spec (see 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0115.html>)
>  b) all feedback I've seen over here seems to come from people
> either active in the IETF, or both IETF and W3C; what are the next
> steps to actually make progress now?

I would write an Internet-Draft entitled "URI Scheme Prefixes
Considered Harmful", but I don't know that it would do much good. We
seem to have a fundamental disconnect here about whether this proposed
convention is sensible, and not much of a conversation to clarify the
differences of opinion. I continue to think that it's incumbent upon
those who are proposing this convention to clearly describe what it
is, how it works, why they think it's a good idea, why it's an
acceptable precedent, why it doesn't introduce security concerns, why
it does not require additional work by the IANA or URI reviewers, and
exactly how it does not stomp on general URI principles. But to date
no one has offered to do that, so we have this vaguely-defined
convention that some smart folks seem to think is a great idea and
other smart folks seem to think is a horrible idea.

Given the general architectural implications of this proposed
convention, perhaps it would make sense to raise this issue with the TAG?


- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre

Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/


Received on Thursday, 23 August 2012 16:19:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:47 UTC