- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 19:13:43 +0100
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- CC: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
On 2012-01-19 19:00, David Booth wrote: > ... +1 > ... > What other options are being considered? > > It just seems to me -- if I've understood correctly -- that what's > really going on here is that the new URI scheme would be created > specifically for a particular class of handlers, when to my mind a URI > scheme should be handler-neutral. Otherwise we would be creating > parallel universes of URI schemes (e.g., foo: and web+foo). > > If I've misunderstood, please set me straight. I definitely do not > fully understand this proposed HTML5 feature, so I may have got it all > wrong. Basically, the spec reserves special semantics for infinite number of new schemes, but doesn't want to deal with the maintenance. Instead (stealing an idea mentioned earlier), it could simply define a new URI scheme "web", and manage that namespace itself. At least that would contain the effects of this experiment. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 19 January 2012 18:14:24 UTC