- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:36:00 +0100
- To: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- CC: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>, "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 2012-01-19 15:26, Christopher B Ferris wrote: > Martin, > > I still do not understand, from your explanations, what value the 'web+' > prefix brings to the table over the status quo. > > I get that it would be bad for a malicious web service to try to trick > the user into associating all http traffic with it. However, > 'web+' doesn't really fix that, instead it creates more problems that it > intends to solve. > > The authors of a protocol are likely not the same individuals who might > conceive of the idea of a web-based handler. Seems as if the scheme will > simply encourage > all protocol designers to register their URI scheme with the 'web+' > prefix simply to leave open the prospect of a web-based handler. This > defeats the intended > purpose of the 'web+' prefix. > > Further, I notice the whitelist omits xmpp. Is there no hope for > web-based IM, absent a formal change in the spec? Someone better alert > Meebo. > ... xmpp missing from the whitelist sounds like a bug to me. Please raise a bugzilla issue: <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/enter_bug.cgi?product=HTML%20WG> Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 19 January 2012 14:36:39 UTC