On Tuesday, October 27, 2009 2:35 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:36 AM, Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> wrote:
> > I would like to see implementation feedback on this. I don't
> > understand
> > why we would want to assign semantics to urn:uuid: URLs that are so
> > specific -- that seems completely wrong. It also seems really awkward
> > from
> > an implementation perspective to forgo the normal extension mechanism
> > (schemes) and have implementations give special (and non-trivial)
> > semantics to a subset of another scheme. Why are we doing this?

> But like Arun, I suspect that this feature is the most controversial
> in the spec. Apple expressed concern about having a string represent a
> handle to a resource, and when we talked to Microsoft they briefly
> mentioned that they has concerns about this feature too, though I
> don't know specifically what their concerns were.

The main concern I had was whether the URN feature was a must have for v1 given 
Arun's desire that this be the simplest spec that we could then build on later. 
Implementing a new protocol handler is more complex than just supporting the 
API part, for us anyway.

I am also concerned about introducing new origin semantics - in the past this 
has been a source of security bugs and so I question whether we need to rush 
into this part (I accept the use case is valuable but I'm not sure it is 
initially essential).



Reply via email to