[whatwg] Reserving XRI and URN in registerProtocolHandler
brettz9 at yahoo.com
Thu Nov 25 20:33:25 PST 2010
My apologies, I realized that there might be a modification needed to
the HTML5 design of registerProtocolHandler, in that URN and XRI are
better designed to work, in many cases, with registration to a specific
namespace. For example, one application might only wish to handle
urn:earthquakes or xri:http://example.com/myProtocols/someProtocol which
hopefully registerProtocolHandler could be expanded to allow such
specification without interfering with other URN/XRI protocol handlers
which attempted to handle a different namespace.
On 11/26/2010 12:20 PM, Brett Zamir wrote:
> 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 IANA protocols.
> 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
> as well:
> http://email@example.com/msg20066.html in
> that it makes it much more likely that people would actually use any
> of these protocols.
> thank you,
More information about the whatwg