headers
Graham Klyne | 15 Apr 2011 15:02

Re: A proposal for specifying the 'view-source' URI scheme

Martin,

I'm guessing your comments are missing Mykyta's point.  Without knowing all the 
  details, I'm guessing that a view source URI scheme *has been implemented* as 
a mechanism for displaying page source (cf. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View-source_URI_scheme), and Mykyta is asking if it 
should be documented and registered as provisional.

This is separate from any issue of its desirability or recommendation that it be 
used.

I don't have any especially strong feeling about this.  On balance, I think 
having its existence documented is not a bad thing, but not an activity I'd be 
inclined to invest a lot of effort in.  Maybe just a registration template with 
a link to the Wikipedia page?

#g
--

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 4/13/11 12:28 AM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
>>
>> On 2011/04/12 6:59, Eric Johnson wrote:
>>> How fascinating.
>>>
>>> It strikes me that the point of this URL is to signal to a browser that
>>> it should serve content available via HTTP (and others?) in a particular
>>> presentation. Logically, then, this really should fall to the
>>> presentation layer (HTML).
>> Well, you can of course use HTML to present source code, by e.g. putting
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Eric Johnson | 15 Apr 2011 18:38
Favicon

Re: A proposal for specifying the 'view-source' URI scheme

I guess my take on it, which seems to align with Martin's, is that 
whatever intent behind the view-source URI scheme, it appears to solve 
the problem in the wrong way. The functionality can be handled at the 
presentation/application layer in the browser, not at the extremely 
low-level of a URI scheme. And of course, if you want to view source, 
currently you can simply do Ctrl+U, or your browser's equivalent.

If it is flawed, then perhaps it is sufficient to have a Wikipedia page, 
and not have it documented at the IETF?

-Eric.

On 4/15/11 6:02 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
> Martin,
>
> I'm guessing your comments are missing Mykyta's point.  Without 
> knowing all the  details, I'm guessing that a view source URI scheme 
> *has been implemented* as a mechanism for displaying page source (cf. 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View-source_URI_scheme), and Mykyta is 
> asking if it should be documented and registered as provisional.
>
> This is separate from any issue of its desirability or recommendation 
> that it be used.
>
> I don't have any especially strong feeling about this.  On balance, I 
> think having its existence documented is not a bad thing, but not an 
> activity I'd be inclined to invest a lot of effort in.  Maybe just a 
> registration template with a link to the Wikipedia page?
>
> #g
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Graham Klyne | 15 Apr 2011 22:03

Re: A proposal for specifying the 'view-source' URI scheme

Part of the reason for introducing the *provisional* scheme registry was to 
provide a single point where developers could find out about known URI schemes 
deployed or under consideration, irrespective of how good or bad they may be. 
The other option, which we'd like to avoid, is to have lots of invented schemes 
in the wild that developers are not aware of, which in turn leads to potentially 
conflicting uses of a given scheme name.

And in some cases, they might even be registered with an exhortation like "DO 
NOT USE THIS".

#g
--

Eric Johnson wrote:
> I guess my take on it, which seems to align with Martin's, is that 
> whatever intent behind the view-source URI scheme, it appears to solve 
> the problem in the wrong way. The functionality can be handled at the 
> presentation/application layer in the browser, not at the extremely 
> low-level of a URI scheme. And of course, if you want to view source, 
> currently you can simply do Ctrl+U, or your browser's equivalent.
> 
> If it is flawed, then perhaps it is sufficient to have a Wikipedia page, 
> and not have it documented at the IETF?
> 
> -Eric.
> 
> On 4/15/11 6:02 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>> Martin,
>>
>> I'm guessing your comments are missing Mykyta's point.  Without
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Alexey Melnikov | 16 Apr 2011 00:15
Favicon

Re: A proposal for specifying the 'view-source' URI scheme

Graham Klyne wrote:

> Part of the reason for introducing the *provisional* scheme registry 
> was to provide a single point where developers could find out about 
> known URI schemes deployed or under consideration, irrespective of how 
> good or bad they may be. The other option, which we'd like to avoid, 
> is to have lots of invented schemes in the wild that developers are 
> not aware of, which in turn leads to potentially conflicting uses of a 
> given scheme name.

+1. It is much better to document a URI scheme as provisional, 
especially if it is deployed.

> And in some cases, they might even be registered with an exhortation 
> like "DO NOT USE THIS".

Indeed.
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane