Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 10:38:44 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The downsides of inventing a URI scheme include:
1) URIs using this scheme will not parse into components properly (the
feed: scheme has this problem)
2) The scheme really should be registered through IANA, which will be
a bureaucratic hassle
3) IANA would probably be hesitant, because user-private: does not
describe a new resource access method, it just describes what headers
you want to send, which in http is separate from the URI
4) It is in fact a valid point that this violates the design of URI
schemes
5) Code throughout the system will have to know to special-case this
URI scheme to treat it as equivalent to the corresponding HTTP URI
I strongly agree that if we do this at all we should not do it through a
new URI scheme. If we do this something like Hixie's original proposal
makes more sense to me (and maybe allowing it to be influenced by a flag):
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2008May/0007.html
I detailed in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/0116.html
why I think doing requests twice is a bad idea, but i would be ok with
introducing a flag.
/ Jonas
