- From: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:31:49 -0500
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 2012-01-14 23:52, Jonathan A Rees wrote: >> >> I guess I would like to know what problem is supposed to be solved by >> web+ before weighing in. >> >> And I'd like to know the intended scope of the handler in >> 'Any Web page is able to register a handler for all "web+" schemes.' >> The wording in [2] seems too vague to allow any kind of analysis. >> >> Is there more complete documentation for this feature somewhere? >> >> Jonathan >> ... > > > It seem <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#custom-handlers> > contains the rest of the information. Maybe it does, but it doesn't answer my question - to what problem is this a solution? Also how is it expected to play out in practice? What will the new security dialogs look like and will they baffle users like all the others do? Has anyone already implemented it? The list of 'legacy schemes' is a red flag for me. By what criteria is inclusion in the list determined? Suppose the list needs to be changed, does that require a change to the HTML specification? What is it about 'mailto', really, that causes it to be treated differently from 'http'? The word 'core' doesn't explain much to me. A more conservative design would be to have a single new web: URI scheme with a subscheme registry (sort of link urn:), rather than lots of new URI schemes. This wouldn't allow registering behavior for mailto:, but might mean fewer surprises and less standards innovation. Not opposed, just confused. Someone has thought about this a lot, and I don't know what they've thought. > Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2012 15:32:22 UTC