On 2011-06-17 06:01, Barry Leiba wrote:
More substantively, I fail to understand how this specification
proposes to create a class of "reserved" about: URIs when the about:
scheme seems to be internal information to an application. I think
the Security Considerations section doesn't address any of that, and
probably ought to, particularly in light of the proposal to add text
that users ought not to depend on "standard" behaviour.
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....
...
The reason this whole activity is started is...
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html5-20110525/syntax.html#the-doctype>
which "defines"
about:legacy-compat
for which interoperable behavior is required from browsers.
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf