On 21.01.2011 02:13, Ted Hardie wrote:
...
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.
...
That sounds reasonable. Let's not make it more complicated than it needs
to be.
As a thought experiment, would the W3C counsel against the presence
of an about URI in an XML namespace?
Reminder: the reason this was written down was so that
"about:legacy-compat" can be specified as XML system identifier in HTML5
(<http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-doctype>).
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".
I just checked an image/svg+xml has "W3C" as change controller. Why
would the requirement be different here?
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf