- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:52:50 +0900
- To: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
- CC: Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
On 2012/12/14 16:30, Karl Dubost wrote: > > Le 14 déc. 2012 à 16:26, Paul Libbrecht a écrit : >> I wonder if that is something everyone wants but it's clear at least (using this basically means you want a vendor lock-in!). >> (in the current situation on iOS, it seems desired by users). > > Another interpretation is that they have been forced to come up with a proprietary url scheme because iOS doesn't allow/enable the handling of URL schemes/app association. > > For example, when receiving an email with http on iOS, you can't send it automagically to Opera Mini. > Users don't have choices on iOS. Yes, exactly. As far as I understand, the blame here is really much more on Apple than on Google. Using the URI scheme to distinguish between applications works for mail vs. web (mailto: vs. http:), but not for much else. One of the crucial steps was when Apple introduced a new URI scheme for iTunes. I think that Tim Bray brought it up in the TAG, but that must have been a really loooong time ago. When you submit an app to Apple, you can ask for any URI scheme to be associated with your app. My guess is that there are tons of such associations. About 3 years ago, a student of mine applied, and got one assigned, although his app, part of an experiment we ran, was overall downloaded maybe a dozen times only. Of course it sticks out much more if it's Google :-). Although Apple iOS (or other platforms') apps are not the Web, it might be a good idea to come up with better ways of starting up apps. For many cases, I guess a media type would do very well, although there might be exceptions. Regards, Martin.
Received on Friday, 14 December 2012 07:53:30 UTC