2011/1/21, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>: > 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). Hello all, I'd like to agree with the proposition to create the regsitry for 'about' URI tokens That will allow to track what tokens become 'reserved', 'unreserved', etc. simplier. Mykyta Yevstifeyev > > 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 > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf