[whatwg] Reserving XRI and URN in registerProtocolHandler
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri Nov 26 07:59:38 PST 2010
On 26.11.2010 16:55, Brett Zamir wrote:
> On 11/26/2010 7:13 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 26.11.2010 11:54, Brett Zamir wrote:
>>> My apologies for the lack of clarity on the approval process. I see all
>>> the protocols listed with them, so I wasn't clear.
>>> In any case, I still see the need for both types being reserved (and for
>>> their subnamespaces targeted by the protocol handler), in that
>>> namespacing is built into the XRI unlike for informal URNs which could
>>> potentially conflict.
>> I'm still not sure what you mean by "reserve" and what that would mean
>> for the spec and for implementations.
> I just mean that authors should not use already registered protocols
> except as intended, thinking that they can use any which protocol name
> they like (e.g., the Urn Manufacturers Company using "urn" for its
> categorization scheme).
>> I do agree that the current definition doesn't work well for the "urn"
>> URI scheme, as, as you observed, semantics depend on the first
>> component (the URN namespace). Do you have an example for an URN
>> namespace you actually want a protocol handler for?
Oh, that's a good point. In particular, if the URN WG at some day makes
progress with respect to retrieval.
So, would it be possible to write a generic protocolHandler for URN
which itself delegates to more specific ones?
More information about the whatwg