3 ms·

This is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin. The _entire_ point of URLs is that they're just that -- Universal. Requiring a specific application in order

This is so wrong, I don't even know where to begin. The _entire_ point of URLs is that they're just that -- Universal. Requiring a specific application in order to consume a URL is just as asinine as User Agent sniffing to enforce an 'IE Only' policy (and you're lying if you say that ended well). Perhaps consuming based on Content-Type headers would be a better way to attack this (legitimate) problem. Certainly in the early days of the web, that's how it was done (want to enjoy the latest VRML? Install plugin 'x'). Adding a layer of abstraction on top of URLs that tries to mediate this is just altogether wrong, I think. Debate welcome. I'm mostly just thinking out loud here.

lygaret 15y ago
See my comment above, but I'm pretty sure you have his argument backwards; we already _do_ have application specific URLs in iOS, and wouldn't it be nice if that weren't the case?
lukejduncan 15y ago
On android they are more properly thought of as URI's than URL's. The point of a URI is to give a canonical representation of an object, and an URL represents the location of that object (or representative). Web intents are great because I can say "I want this song, Android please let the best app respond (which may be a browser)" instead of "I want to access this song via Spotify, even if its not there and it is on X provider that I have access too."
zokier 15y ago
Actually, I think the "official" expansion for URL is Uniform Resource Locator, not Universal. But either way, I believe that it refers to the property of not being tied to Web specifically, but rather any resource in the internet. All URLs require more or less specific application to handle them; web browser for http-URLs, mail client for mailto-URLs etc. I don't think that fb-URL is any worse. You could register your browser to handle them, or use a native application, based on your preference. If Facebook would be forced to use http-URLs then you wouldn't have that choice.

lygaret 15y ago

See my comment above, but I'm pretty sure you have his argument backwards; we already _do_ have application specific URLs in iOS, and wouldn't it be nice if that weren't the case?

lukejduncan 15y ago

On android they are more properly thought of as URI's than URL's. The point of a URI is to give a canonical representation of an object, and an URL represents the location of that object (or representative). Web intents are great because I can say "I want this song, Android please let the best app respond (which may be a browser)" instead of "I want to access this song via Spotify, even if its not there and it is on X provider that I have access too."

zokier 15y ago

Actually, I think the "official" expansion for URL is Uniform Resource Locator, not Universal. But either way, I believe that it refers to the property of not being tied to Web specifically, but rather any resource in the internet. All URLs require more or less specific application to handle them; web browser for http-URLs, mail client for mailto-URLs etc. I don't think that fb-URL is any worse. You could register your browser to handle them, or use a native application, based on your preference. If Facebook would be forced to use http-URLs then you wouldn't have that choice.