> 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. 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. 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. If different browsers exhibit different behaviour with the same about:xxxx URI, that's as it is, and the variations should be documented. Developers of new browsers will have to decide which older browsers to emulate. But none of this actually speaks to interoperability among browsers or web servers or applications or.... Barry _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf