Re: HTML5 proposes introduction of new family of URI schemes

Robin Berjon wrote:
> How is the web platform expected to be viable if it cannot perform
> some tasks that are trivial for installed applications? In what way
> is this API a protocol-layer solution?

More correctly, then, it's a wholesale change to the Web architecture
for no reason other than "because webmail" when a browser config hasn't
even been tried.  If there were some empirical evidence to point to
showing that everyone's a numbnut who can't figure this out, different
story, but assuming that will fail before it's been tried is putting the
cart before the horse (greenfield solutions are the opposite of what
standardization is about).

All developers need is markup to declare the intent "this is an e-mail
address" which is solved by mailto: URIs.  Why on Earth would I want to
go back and change every static Web page I've ever put a mailto: on to
make it some sort of interactive API which expresses "this is the same
damn e-mail address for Gmail, this is the same damn e-mail address for
Yahoo, this is the same damn e-mail address for standalone clients"
etc. when all I need is to declare "this is an e-mail address" which
is STILL the only real intent -- declaring an e-mail addy to be an e-
mail addy.

Handwaving won't get past the fact that this "fixes" something that's
never been broken, without any regard for the ramifications, in a way
that's exactly the opposite of what made the Web work in the first
place.  Which was the simplicity of just marking up an e-mail addy to
be recognizable as one, and leaving it at that for decades on end no
maintenance required.  I don't want all my prior work appearing "broken"
to visitors and domain owners because the browser vendors never even
tried addressing the webmail problem with a configuration.

I'd better shutup now before I get another disruptiveness warning, but
:sweetjesus: I wish listmail had rage smilies.


Received on Thursday, 19 January 2012 17:22:59 UTC