Re: [apps-discuss] The acct: scheme question

[[e-mail] (Henry S. Thompson)]

John Bradley writes:

> As another poster pointed out schemes have particular semantics and
> trigger specific browser behaviours.  The scheme needs to answer 
> questions around expected browser behaviour.

Precisely.  I have no detailed interest in webfinger as such, but new
URI schemes are not something to be created casually.  We have
guidelines for these things, in the form of RFC 4395 [1], which says,
_inter alia_,

  "The use and deployment of new URI schemes in the Internet
   infrastructure is costly; . . . For these reasons, the unbounded
   registration of new schemes is harmful.  New URI schemes SHOULD
   have clear utility to the broad Internet community, beyond that
   available with already registered URI schemes."

Pushing through a new scheme because it's a relatively minor part of a
larger project which people are keen to get finished doesn't seem like
the best way to get the necessary careful review that a new scheme
requires.

ht

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395
-- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: [phone], e-mail: [e-mail]
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]