Why No new URI protocols [Re: [Usability] Proposal for Spatial Nautilus: Shelf Location]

[Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>]

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004, Thorsten Seitz wrote:

<snip>

> > > Imagine a special URI location shelf:/// which is commonly called "Shelf"
> > > in the UI.
> > [...]
> > I am not in anyway excluding the idea of the Shelf creating a new URI is
> > an absolute non-starter.  I can look up the reasons previously given if
> > you want
>
> That would be very nice! I'd very much like to read/understand those reasons.
>
> > leave the implementation details until later.  I hope I have managed to
> > politely express my strong objection.

My previous mail (rant) trying to explain why creating new protocols/URI
are a bad idea
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/usability/2003-July/msg00241.html

let us take WebDAV for example,
Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning actually uses HTTP but they
created their own webdav: label.
This gives people yet another difficult to remember awkward to
type protocol.
It needlessly breaks compatibility with the many applications that already
understand http://

There is a general move in Nautilus to hide the location altogether on the
basis that file system paths are a difficult way for ordinary users to
navigate their computer.  Remembering new tyes of URI makes complicated
paths even harder.

Eventually after much searching through the archives I found comment from
an expert
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/usability/2003-January/msg00077.html
Well Nils Pedersen (Sun UI guy) is quoted as saying "URIs are E V I L :)"
here:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2003-January/msg00277.html

basically it is exposing a nasty implementation detail that most users
neither want nor need to know about.  (i expect it was in response to a
thread that was trying to suggest 'friendly URIs' which rather misses the
point).  If you are thinking about a new URI for identifying your resource
you have probably already made your application too complicated.

I like this post, it articulates that URI protocols are being used as
containers when instead we could use a much better well eastablish
container with many tools available for manipulating it known as 'the
directory'
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2003-January/msg00333.html

http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2003-January/msg00346.html
"Users should never be expected to type in a gnome URI - or even know
about them." -- Sander Vesik

URIs dont lend themselves to translation but that goes with the fact that
they shouldn't be seen anyway.
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2003-January/msg00295.html

this post talks of the navigation difficulties caused by the start-here://
protocol
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/usability/2002-September/msg00038.html

If you are still not convinced then I'm going to have to try really hard
to remember more reasons, but I really hope I have convinced you and maybe
I'll be able to make some useful comments constructive comments about your
proposed Gnome "Shelf".

I'm not sure this is quite relevant to the HIG but can anyone suggest how
best to publically make clear that many of us think URI's need to be
avoided?

Sincerely

Alan Horkan

For reference purposes the RFC on URI (ugh too many acronyms)
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt