On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 06:05:33PM +0300, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
> 15.06.2011 13:13, Julian Reschke wrote:
> >That being said, if our Mozilla friends do not want to fix this it
> >might be a good idea to warn readers that certain implementations
> >fail to properly unescape, thus it's unwise to rely on that
> >behavior (why would you anyway?).
> I fully agree with you, Julian. I think we'll do certainly as you
> propose, unless Boris will provide some strong reasons to do in
> other way.
If I am reading the document and the above correctly, then you are
proposing the following:
1. The document proposes to make standard rules about what
applications do with input that is, by definition, completely
internal to that application; and,
2. You propose in addition to state what is the standard, but
note that nobody should rely on it because one of the largest
implementers of the scheme doesn't follow the supposed standard.
Do I have this correct? If so, I would like to request that the
WINDMILL or perhaps TILT WG be chartered to deal with this manner of
work.
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.
Best,
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf