I’d like to push more on the data + MIME type mechanism – it seems more flexible, might not have the same length limits, etc (I think there are quite a number of advantages in terms of flexibility and expressiveness.)
Is there any reason why applications that are considering a new URI scheme couldn’t get the same done with a new Media Type?
<< When I said “the process is irrelevant” I did mean, as Martin suggests “in the long run” >>
Larry
From: Larry Masinter [mailto:masinter@adobe.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 1:37 AM
To: julian.reschke@gmx.de; Martin J. Dürst
Cc: david@dbooth.org; robin@berjon.com; www-tag@w3.org; Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com; mjs@apple.com; rubys@intertwingly.net
Subject: RE: HTML5 proposes introduction of new family of URI schemes
also
web+x:y could also instead be coded
data:text/web.x,y
that is, use/register a new mime type instead of a new url scheme.
-----Original message-----
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com<mailto:masinter@adobe.com>>
To: "julian.reschke@gmx.de<mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de>" <julian.reschke@gmx.de<mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de>>, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp<mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>>
Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org<mailto:david@dbooth.org>>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com<mailto:robin@berjon.com>>, "www-tag@w3.org List<mailto:www-tag@w3.org%20List>" <www-tag@w3.org<mailto:www-tag@w3.org>>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com<mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com<mailto:mjs@apple.com>>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net<mailto:rubys@intertwingly.net>>
Sent: Sat, Jan 21, 2012 05:55:25 GMT+00:00
Subject: RE: HTML5 proposes introduction of new family of URI schemes
>> I'm not sure what the difference would be between having e.g.,
>> "web+acme:hello" and "web:acme:hello", except for a multi-level
>> structure where potential inventors of a new protocol/scheme get more
>> confused than necessary.
> ...
> The difference is mainly process: "web+" needs coordination with and approval
> by the IETF IRI WG, while "web:" is simply one additional new URI scheme.
The process is mainly irrelevant (sure, you might have to update the RFC twice, but in the IETF, decisions are made by rough consensus of the internet community, the "working group" doesn't approve.)
The issue mainly is whether you follow the generic hierarchical syntax and can use all URI parsing libraries if there's an 'authority' that you want to process differently than the path.
for
web+blah://a/b/c
a is authority, path is /b/c
but for
web:blah://a/b/c
there is no authority, path is blah://a/b/c
Remember:
scheme = ALPHA *( ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "-" / "." )