Hi Barry,
On 6/17/11 6:01 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
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.
Indeed. That's a good argument to stop right there.
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.
It seems to me we could simply inform IANA that about: is reserved for
internal use by a browser, and not to be assigned for other purposes,
and not to be exchanged between hosts. Do we really need an RFC to do that?
Eliot
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf