> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba > Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:01 PM > To: Andrew Sullivan > Cc: draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; IETF Discussion; > Julian Reschke; Boris Zbarsky; Alexey Melnikov > Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme-06.txt> (The > 'about' URI scheme) to Proposed Standard > > 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.... I suppose adding it as an IANA-registered scheme, referencing something that's Informational, is a reasonable way for a new browser implementer to be reminded that support for such a scheme is common and probably expected. But if we feel that's either not useful or not the IETF's place (or not a valid use of the IANA scheme registry), then I'm left to +1 Barry's comments above. -MSK _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf