- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:55:18 +0100
- To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- CC: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, "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 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 <http://www.mnot.net/blog/2011/08/24/distributed_hungarian_notation_doesnt_work>. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 19 January 2012 19:56:08 UTC