Subject: [Http-use] Revisiting the 'no more type://' constructs thing..

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 14:34:32 -0300

I may have misunderstood it, but I am getting a sense from the .onion
debate that there is a substantive push-back in the HTTP/Web community, to
adding new type: instances in URI.

The rest of this, is predicated on that being a "thing" -If I've
misunderstood, then I guess the rest has less relevance. But I have this
impression from a couple of f2f conversations with people who help push
along web related work in IETF, and both times I got the distinct
impression nobody much in web land wants more types in the set of ftp://
http:// mail://  form of type://value notation.

Contrariwise, inside my narrow view of what a domain name is, I think
coercing a value to a specific label in the DNS, to avoid having to say
tor://somepath/ was a huge mistake for domain names. I think this very
strongly. Very. Its just wrong.

Maybe its me, but I think these aren't equally valid concerns. One, is (to
my mind) a pragmatic view in the web community, that new type:// instances
are 'hard'. The other, is an architectural failing, a decision which takes
names as pure names, and converts them to have magic. Magic is bad.

Is this on-topic for this list?

Is this real?

-G