+1 Chris Sent from my iPad On Jan 19, 2012, at 2:57 PM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > 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 20:14:02 UTC