On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf