-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:01 PM
To: Andrew Sullivan
Cc: draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org; IETF
Discussion;
Julian Reschke; Boris Zbarsky; Alexey Melnikov
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme-06.txt> (The
'about' URI scheme) to Proposed Standard
Yes... I'm actually very confused about the point of this document.
It's documenting a URI scheme that's used ONLY internally, and,
therefore, has no interoperability requirements. As best I can tell,
the issue here is to let browser makers know what other browsers do,
so that maybe new browsers will decide to do the same things. That's
fine, and that helps users have a consistent experience across
browsers. But it strikes me as Informational, not Standards Track.
MUSTs and MUST NOTs seem completely out of place here, to me.
If different browsers exhibit different behaviour with the same
about:xxxx URI, that's as it is, and the variations should be
documented. Developers of new browsers will have to decide which
older browsers to emulate.
But none of this actually speaks to interoperability among browsers or
web servers or applications or....
I suppose adding it as an IANA-registered scheme, referencing something that's
Informational, is a reasonable way for a new browser implementer to be reminded
that support for such a scheme is common and probably expected.
But if we feel that's either not useful or not the IETF's place (or not a valid
use of the IANA scheme registry), then I'm left to +1 Barry's comments above.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf