On 6/15/11 5:07 AM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
Applications SHOULD resolve unrecognized "about" URIs in the
same way as "about:blank".
...
I don't think MAY is fine here, as this is a recommendation.
I'm questioning it being a recommendation, is the point. Why is this
behavior recommended, exactly? Given lack of existing interop and lack
of a MUST-level requirement here, the only reason for a SHOULD would be
if the behavior is believed to be better than other alternatives, right?
Is it? I don't see why.
The point of this comment is to propose abandoning normalization of
'about' URIs because of some ad hoc behavior of an only application -
Gecko.
No, it's to propose abandoning normalization because it's not
necessarily compatible with existing deployed uses of about:, not
clearly compatible with the web security model, and because the
normalization is not defined in the spec. The Gecko behavior is just an
illustration of the first point.
The purpose of our draft is to give a stable specification of the
scheme
Yes, this is fine.
and normalize all existing types of behavior with regard to
handling 'about' URIs. It will be easier for Gecko to change its
behavior rather than for other apps to do this.
That's not clear to me given the security implications. Do you have
data to back this up?
Boris, could you please let me know whether you have some strong opinion
regarding your January comments/insist on incorporating them in the draft.
See above.
-Boris
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf