15.06.2011 23:16, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
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.
Currently and actually I have nearly the same concern. The -02 version
still had Informational intended status, I don't know what was a reason
for switching to Standards Track. I have a feeling that producing the
Informational RFC describing "the most common behavior" is an option,
but we'll fail to "standardize" the scheme. I personally think
standardizing the internal-usage scheme is a bit irrelevant, so here i
agree with you.
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.
That's an interesting point as well. Trying to standardize the abut URI
scheme, we're trying to state that URI about:nnnn is used only and only
fir the purpose xxxx whereas about:mmmm is used only for purpose yyyy.
I understand your concern regarding different purposes of one about URI
in different apps. I can share it with you as well. As a result,
abandoning the intends to give the scheme a Standards Track
specification and complete revision of regulations with regard to
resolving about URIs may be an option.
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Best,
A
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf