URI scheme best practices

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

URI scheme best practices

Bob Van Zant-4
Hello everyone,
I've been reading through RFC 4395 and some of the mailing list
archives. We're working on iOS and Android apps that we'd like to have
be able to respond to URIs in the mail applications of each of those
devices. For example, if we generate a password reset email and send
it to the user and they click on that link in their mail application
we'd like that to fire up our app instead of the web browser.

I recognize that this is a fairly standard thing to do and in reading
through what must be a somewhat memorable thread (fb: URIs?
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2010Feb/0013.html) I see that
this has been beaten around a bit.

Based on the fb: URIs thread I get the feeling that people wish we
could register with iOS and Android to have our app handle URIs of the
form http://www.eventbrite.com/resetpassword. I'm pretty sure that
this is not possible?

Given that we don't think we can use http and given RFC 4395 we're
planning to use a scheme com-eventbrite-attendee: and generate URIs
like com-eventbrite-attendee:resetpassword?parameters&go&here

Is this the current best practice? Is the intent of 4395 that we
attempt registration of the scheme com-eventbrite-attendee:? I'm happy
to go through the process described in section 5 of 4395 but the
extremely tiny URI scheme registration list almost makes me think that
IANA doesn't want us in there.

Thanks,

Bob


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: URI scheme best practices

Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Hi Bob,

The IRI working group of IETF is now working on 4395bis, an the WG is
considering the questions whether to leave or not the provisions you
were guided by.  That was me who raised that issue, and my justification
is that there was no evidence of any attempts to register the scheme
like you're proposing.  So, I'd like you didn't consider such provisions
as current practices, since there has been no practice at all with this
respect.

Thanks,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

07.10.2011 19:07, Bob Van Zant wrote:

> Hello everyone,
> I've been reading through RFC 4395 and some of the mailing list
> archives. We're working on iOS and Android apps that we'd like to have
> be able to respond to URIs in the mail applications of each of those
> devices. For example, if we generate a password reset email and send
> it to the user and they click on that link in their mail application
> we'd like that to fire up our app instead of the web browser.
>
> I recognize that this is a fairly standard thing to do and in reading
> through what must be a somewhat memorable thread (fb: URIs?
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2010Feb/0013.html) I see that
> this has been beaten around a bit.
>
> Based on the fb: URIs thread I get the feeling that people wish we
> could register with iOS and Android to have our app handle URIs of the
> form http://www.eventbrite.com/resetpassword. I'm pretty sure that
> this is not possible?
>
> Given that we don't think we can use http and given RFC 4395 we're
> planning to use a scheme com-eventbrite-attendee: and generate URIs
> like com-eventbrite-attendee:resetpassword?parameters&go&here
>
> Is this the current best practice? Is the intent of 4395 that we
> attempt registration of the scheme com-eventbrite-attendee:? I'm happy
> to go through the process described in section 5 of 4395 but the
> extremely tiny URI scheme registration list almost makes me think that
> IANA doesn't want us in there.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob
>
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: URI scheme best practices

Martin J. Dürst
Hello Bob,

Mykyta is correct that the IRI WG is now working on an update for 4395.
I'm copying that mailing list and suggest that we move discussion there.

Registering company/application/operation-specific URIs is definitely
not current practice, but using them is quite a bit in practice on
mobile Apple systems.

One thing I think you can do is to submit a registration and see how it
goes. If we have lots of such registration requests, that may finally
get Apple to rethink things and find a better way to start applications.

Of course, I hope you also complain loudly to Apple. On this issue, they
definitely deserve it.

Regards,    Martin.

On 2011/10/08 23:03, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:

> Hi Bob,
>
> The IRI working group of IETF is now working on 4395bis, an the WG is
> considering the questions whether to leave or not the provisions you
> were guided by. That was me who raised that issue, and my justification
> is that there was no evidence of any attempts to register the scheme
> like you're proposing. So, I'd like you didn't consider such provisions
> as current practices, since there has been no practice at all with this
> respect.
>
> Thanks,
> Mykyta Yevstifeyev
>
> 07.10.2011 19:07, Bob Van Zant wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>> I've been reading through RFC 4395 and some of the mailing list
>> archives. We're working on iOS and Android apps that we'd like to have
>> be able to respond to URIs in the mail applications of each of those
>> devices. For example, if we generate a password reset email and send
>> it to the user and they click on that link in their mail application
>> we'd like that to fire up our app instead of the web browser.
>>
>> I recognize that this is a fairly standard thing to do and in reading
>> through what must be a somewhat memorable thread (fb: URIs?
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2010Feb/0013.html) I see that
>> this has been beaten around a bit.
>>
>> Based on the fb: URIs thread I get the feeling that people wish we
>> could register with iOS and Android to have our app handle URIs of the
>> form http://www.eventbrite.com/resetpassword. I'm pretty sure that
>> this is not possible?
>>
>> Given that we don't think we can use http and given RFC 4395 we're
>> planning to use a scheme com-eventbrite-attendee: and generate URIs
>> like com-eventbrite-attendee:resetpassword?parameters&go&here
>>
>> Is this the current best practice? Is the intent of 4395 that we
>> attempt registration of the scheme com-eventbrite-attendee:? I'm happy
>> to go through the process described in section 5 of 4395 but the
>> extremely tiny URI scheme registration list almost makes me think that
>> IANA doesn't want us in there.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>