- From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:06:30 -0600
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, public-ietf-w3c@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 8/22/12 2:33 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2012-08-01 19:33, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: >> Following the morning discussion, here are the links to the web+ >> definition: >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/system-state-and-capabilities.html#custom-handlers >> >> >> look for the item on scheme (registerProtocolHandler() only) >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/iana.html#web-scheme-prefix Note that >> the Working Group is about to decide that this section needs >> rewrite because it must not look like an IANA registration. >> >> I also suggest to look at the rational section of a change >> proposal related to this: >> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Eoconnor/ISSUE-189#Rationale >> >> Philippe > > Two observations: > > a) in the meantime, the HTML WG chairs have decided to reject my CP > and to keep "web+" in the spec (see > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Aug/0115.html>) > > b) all feedback I've seen over here seems to come from people > either active in the IETF, or both IETF and W3C; what are the next > steps to actually make progress now? I would write an Internet-Draft entitled "URI Scheme Prefixes Considered Harmful", but I don't know that it would do much good. We seem to have a fundamental disconnect here about whether this proposed convention is sensible, and not much of a conversation to clarify the differences of opinion. I continue to think that it's incumbent upon those who are proposing this convention to clearly describe what it is, how it works, why they think it's a good idea, why it's an acceptable precedent, why it doesn't introduce security concerns, why it does not require additional work by the IANA or URI reviewers, and exactly how it does not stomp on general URI principles. But to date no one has offered to do that, so we have this vaguely-defined convention that some smart folks seem to think is a great idea and other smart folks seem to think is a horrible idea. Given the general architectural implications of this proposed convention, perhaps it would make sense to raise this issue with the TAG? Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAlA2VQYACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyVJgCcDGmcgGSVR1u/AyxPxV44QIvp z9AAn1+hsfN1uD9FYVoB3nVDcsoXA7UO =aHAu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2012 16:07:02 UTC