Re: Last Call: <draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme-06.txt> (The 'about' URI scheme) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I agree with SM's concern that the mechanism by which this is
extended is underspecified.  The draft contains one reserved
token, "blank", and a set of examples which make clear that there
is an unwritten set of known and unknown tokens which populate the "segment"
portion of the given ABNF.  Providing a registry for those tokens,
possibly with simple "reserved" status if no specification exists, might
help.  Standardizing a method for querying what about: tokens are
available in a specific context might as well (about:about, for example,
or about:?about).

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.

As a thought experiment, would the W3C counsel against the presence
of an about URI in an XML namespace?

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".

regards,

Ted Hardie

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 11:18 AM, SM <sm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> At 07:56 14-01-11, The IESG wrote:
>
>> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
>> the following document:
>> - 'The 'about' URI scheme'
>>  <draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme-06.txt> as a Proposed Standard
>>
>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>
> There is a IANA registration in Section 8.  The arguments at
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg65163.html are also
> applicable to draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme-06.
>
> In Section 5.2:
>
>  "Applications MAY resolve any unreserved "about" URI to any resource,
>   either internal or external, or redirect to an alternative URI."
>
> What happens when the unreserved "about" URI becomes a reserved "about" URI
> in future?
>
> Regards,
> -sm
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]