Re: HTML5 proposes introduction of new family of URI schemes

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