Re: HTML5 proposes introduction of new family of URI schemes

On 2012-01-19 20:37, Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
> On 1/19/2012 11:41 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> Well except that there are quite a few developers, yours truly included,
>> who really want this functionality. In fact, as indicated earlier, I
>> find that some parts of it don't go anywhere near far enough.
> Robin: I'd be grateful if you could explain why using URI templates, or
> something similar, to pattern match on existing URIs isn't preferable to
> matching on URIs matching a special "web+" pattern. The drawbacks to
> web+ seem to include:
> * Encourages or even requires people to use new schemes, when other
> schemes might otherwise have been applicable (seems to be at odds with
> the admonition in AWWW that creation of new URI schemes is strongly
> discouraged [1]).
> * Seems to put the decision as to what client will be used in the wrong
> place, I.e. with the person or organization that coins the identifier.
> It should IMO generally be possible to have both Web and native apps
> handle a given identifier, to change one's mind after the fact, etc. If
> documents are full of links to "web+xxx:....." URIs, then lots of
> existing mechanism on the Web doesn't work with them (useless in agents
> that don't know of the new scheme), and you've committed to a naming
> convention just because, at this point in time, you think people will be
> using Web-based implementations.
> ...

Also, overloading names doesn't scale. See 

Best regards, Julian

Received on Thursday, 19 January 2012 19:56:08 UTC