On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Lisa Dusseault
<lisa(_at_)osafoundation(_dot_)org> wrote:
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
Well, yeah, but a lot of the infrastructure is deployed on dumb
devices and, more important, if you stick to existing URI schemes and
use them properly, it All Just Works.
I know it seems like Those Web Guys Hate URI Schemes, and I get tired
of quoting http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-scheme at people, and I
admit being prejudiced by the fact that a high proportion of
new-uri-scheme proposals have historically been poorly-considered (not
all, see RFC4151). But there's no getting around it: the cost of new
schemes is very high, if you want to be part of the Web.
-Tim
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf