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). Cheers, Adrian.
