- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:57:29 +0100
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- CC: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
On 2012-01-24 16:50, Robin Berjon wrote: > On Jan 24, 2012, at 00:29 , Julian Reschke wrote: >> On 2012-01-24 00:07, Robin Berjon wrote: >>> I don't think so. At this point no one has shown that the two are equivalent, and examples attempting to prove that they are use schemes like "web+imageedit" (as in web+imageedit:example.org/unicorn.png) which I'm thinking ought to make anyone who cares about web architecture scream rather loudly : >> >> I agree. But the fact that you, me, and probably almost everybody who's subscribed to this mailing list agree on this won't prevent this from happening. It didn't prevent itms: and webcal: either. > > In this case I was talking about work that's taking place in a W3C task force that's producing Rec-track material which wasn't the case for itms: or webcal:. One can hope that somewhere along the process if the above gains traction there'll be some push-back :) Hmm? The programmers out there who are going to define these schemes most likely aren't active in W3C or IETF...
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 15:58:00 UTC