2011/1/21, Ted Hardie <ted(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>:
I agree with SM's concern that the mechanism by which this is
extended is underspecified. The draft contains one reserved
token, "blank", and a set of examples which make clear that there
is an unwritten set of known and unknown tokens which populate the "segment"
portion of the given ABNF. Providing a registry for those tokens,
possibly with simple "reserved" status if no specification exists, might
help. Standardizing a method for querying what about: tokens are
available in a specific context might as well (about:about, for example,
or about:?about).
Hello all,
I'd like to agree with the proposition to create the regsitry for
'about' URI tokens That will allow to track what tokens become
'reserved', 'unreserved', etc. simplier.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
But the reality is that the behavior resulting from these URIs is totally
non-deterministic and varies from context to context. In most contexts
outside of a browser location bar, they are meaningless. Inside that
context, the browser's definition seems to be definitive. If the aim
is only to get about:blank fully specified, I'd suggest saying so outright,
and noting clearly that all other uses are context-dependent, with
returning about:blank recommended practice for those unknown.
As a thought experiment, would the W3C counsel against the presence
of an about URI in an XML namespace?
Additionally, naming a change controller should generally be a bit more
precise than an organization name. The W3C director or TAG seems
more appropriate than just "W3C".
regards,
Ted Hardie
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 11:18 AM, SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> wrote:
At 07:56 14-01-11, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'The 'about' URI scheme'
<draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme-06.txt> as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
There is a IANA registration in Section 8. The arguments at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg65163.html are also
applicable to draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme-06.
In Section 5.2:
"Applications MAY resolve any unreserved "about" URI to any resource,
either internal or external, or redirect to an alternative URI."
What happens when the unreserved "about" URI becomes a reserved "about"
URI
in future?
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf