Re: [Uri-review] Review Provisional registration for app URI scheme

[Stian Soiland-Reyes <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:43:37 +0000, Graham Klyne <[e-mail]> wrote:
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/B2G_OS/Security/Security_model#Packaged_Apps
> 
> The historical use could IMO constitute a "compelling practical reason", 
> depending on the scope and nature of its deployment.  A registration of 'app' as 
> historical, or a note about it's origins in the registration template for the 
> revised scheme might be options to consider here.

Yes, perhaps such an historical registration can also point forward to
the arcp registration.  

I'll keep (but modify) the "History" section in the arcp Internet-Draft.

> I think local-use URI schemes (like app was?) create a kind of messy corner 
> case: the local-use may be fine until (a) someone wants to use the same name for 
> something else on the global network, or (b) the scheme leaks from its local 
> use.  I sometimes think of these as "URI-like strings" rather than full-on URIs, 
> but I'm sure others would have different perspectives.

Yes, this is why early specifications of widget URI scheme strongly
recommended UUID authorities, so that such URIs would be safe to leak
(although non-functioning outside the local system).  For whatever
reason this recommendation was lifted in later app-uri specs which
increased risk of collisions.

I am ambivalent if my proposed "name," prefix should be kept in "arcp"
or if we should only recommend UUID or hash.

(but at least with DNS names you will mainly collide with yourself :)  

-- 
Stian Soiland-Reyes
The University of Manchester
http://www.esciencelab.org.uk/
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718