Re: HTML5 proposes introduction of new family of URI schemes

On Jan 24, 2012, at 16:57 , Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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 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...

Right, but that's a consideration different from the context in which the discussion you cite was happening, which was about the relationship between RPH and Web Intents. See and following.

Robin Berjon - - @robinberjon

Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 16:03:24 UTC