> xmpp missing from the whitelist sounds like a bug to me. Please raise a bugzilla issue Done Chris Sent from my iPad On Jan 19, 2012, at 9:37 AM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > 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 14:57:48 UTC