IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Uri-review] [uri-review] Review Request for Icon URI Scheme

Toby Inkster <mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> Fri, 09 April 2010 11:06 UTC

Return-Path: <mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
X-Original-To: uri-review@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 858723A67FA for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 04:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.185
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.185 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IefjHx5GLQ-F for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 04:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ophelia.g5n.co.uk (ophelia.g5n.co.uk [81.2.120.180]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F7533A67D2 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 04:06:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ophelia.g5n.co.uk (Postfix, from userid 500) id C5501B9803; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 12:06:14 +0100 (BST)
From: Toby Inkster <mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
To: Pierre-Antoine LaFayette <pierre@alumni.utoronto.ca>
In-Reply-To: <m2v743256c51004050812w2a5a95f2y57104ee6aafa0be6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <m2v743256c51004050812w2a5a95f2y57104ee6aafa0be6@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 12:06:12 +0100
Message-ID: <1270811172.29423.261.camel@ophelia2.g5n.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.1-1mdv2010.0
Cc: uri-review@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] [uri-review] Review Request for Icon URI Scheme
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 11:06:35 -0000

On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 11:12 -0400, Pierre-Antoine LaFayette wrote:
> I've put together a draft document for an icon URI scheme, used for
> displaying platform specific icons in web pages, that I would like to
> get some feedback on.

This seems to have pretty poor fallback behaviour in existing user
agents. It would seem advantageous to reuse the existing HTTP scheme.

Rather than, have a URI of say:

	<icon:image/jpeg;32>

Instead use:

	<http://icons.example.net/image/jpeg;32>

Where icons.example.net is a domain name registered to someone
shepherding this idea.

icons.example.net would issue a policy stating that user agents are
permitted to resolve URIs beginning with <http://icons.example.net/>
internally (i.e. without making an HTTP GET request).

icons.example.net would provide an icon delivery service for legacy user
agents that did not resolve these URIs internally.

-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email