[whatwg] Reserving XRI and URN in registerProtocolHandler
brettz9 at yahoo.com
Thu Nov 25 20:20:08 PST 2010
I'd like to propose reserving two protocols for use with
navigator.registerProtocolHandler: "urn" and "xri" (or possibly xriNN
where NN is a version number).
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Resource_Identifier for info
on XRI (basically allows the equivalents of URN but with a user-defined
namespace and without needing ICANN/IANA approval). Although it was
rejected earlier, I don't see that there is any other way for sites to
create their own categorization or other behavior mechanisms in a way
which is well-namespaced, does not rely on waiting for official
approval, and has the benefits of working with the HTML5 specification
as already designed.
URN is something which I think also deserves to be reserved, if not all
As I see it, the only way for a site to innovate safely in avoiding
conflicts for non-IANA protocols is to use XRI (assuming especially if
it can be officially reserved).
And all of this would be enhanced, in my view, if my earlier proposal
for defaultURIs and alternateURIs attributes on <a/> could be accepted
that it makes it much more likely that people would actually use any of
More information about the whatwg