inventing URI schemes considered harmful (was: e-book reader)
Yoric at users.sf.net
Fri Aug 3 11:42:57 EDT 2007
Thanks for the references Simon, you're right, a custom scheme may not
be the best idea. I may have gotten over-enthousiastic because custom
schemes are easy to implement within the Mozilla platform.
Assuming I'm right nonetheless on the fact that hijacking http through a
proxy would be a bad idea, this would leave us with either tag: URIs or
with URNs. Any suggestions on pros and cons ?
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 16:15 +0200, Yoric wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 11:40 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > "New URI Schemes: 99% Harmful"
> > <http://infomesh.net/2001/09/urischemes>
> > A specification SHOULD reuse an existing URI scheme (rather than create
> > a new one) when it provides the desired properties of identifiers and
> > their relation to resources.
> > <http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-scheme>
> > If you're positive that you need a new URI scheme, please do it
> > properly: consult <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2717.txt> and
> > <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2718.txt> for details.
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at lists.laptop.org
More information about the Devel