On Aug 7, 2008, at 10:47 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Keith Moore <moore(_at_)network-heretics(_dot_)com
> wrote:
The TAG is in fact clearly correct when they state that introduction
of new URI schemes is quite expensive.
To me it seems that this depends on the extent to which those new URI
schemes are to be used in contexts where existing URI schemes are
used. New
URI schemes used in new contexts or applications are not overly
burdensome.
Right, but there's a contradiction lurking here. You probably
wouldn't bother to use URI syntax unless you expected fairly wide
utilization, or to benefit from the plethora of existing URI-parsing
and -resolving software. The notion of wanting to use URI syntax but
simultaneously requiring a new scheme is often a symptom of fuzzy
thinking.
Don't browser and OS libraries dispatch on URI scheme? I guess it's
probably not as easy to extend as adding a new handler for a new
Content-Type, but it's at least possible for a new URI scheme to start
appearing (in email, Web pages, local docs, etc) and for the user to
install an application which registers for handling that scheme, and
suddenly they have new functionality without upgrading the OS or
browser.
To me, that's a pretty compelling and unfuzzy benefit. It doesn't
apply to all proposed new URI schemes, but it arguably does for HELD.
Lisa
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf