Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call for HTML5 in the W3C

Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com> Sun, 19 June 2011 20:17 UTC

Return-Path: <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83D7611E8084 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 13:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, J_CHICKENPOX_55=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_56=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mtjPIKKoF+tG for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 13:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD43811E8077 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 13:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk5 with SMTP id 5so3369884pzk.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 13:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=eXED9/l3G7LAPjGhFxFbyy6sjuDYgqcNzL1ABfWJ22Q=; b=MNdDY8CxN34RSMmoAK6ZPFrxdIKEMiu/QZWUzifJ2xJ9Qc0CLxPhOVKfFkBVkq4OAr BokvBU0PIG7BxRtbDDE7m/VPwKSlPwm0+HkjmJ10R/WWa5Ec0GFAXh3VEhFZ+DvFG7/h AkSG+Cs9K8T2hXA3D/OsmrJSr0hQ0Njyu6HUE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=nYGxZg5fh6lQZtbXbCy5n2OEXKsMkCVV2HOGpbf2zxAMA5YEiMMKVuCE6x7uLcTRzL edU3JeS+KAr25ot1cMa8dg9Hv1Kw3FDThIHnLfp6dWSFjsEsMNysNUBzNjmYR8MopEiK kS4PiFIGSd6rO7/4Y6L74jS+6JcjLMwkHq0FI=
Received: by 10.142.226.15 with SMTP id y15mr702956wfg.232.1308514625227; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 13:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.143.156.6 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 13:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4DFC2D58.6020502@gmail.com>
References: <ED845ED2-A05F-42B1-B17A-E8B3A6F07D7B@mnot.net> <4DFC2D58.6020502@gmail.com>
From: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 22:16:45 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTin9suCXcWXAHEQu6uvwsC4hDQNqZQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call for HTML5 in the W3C
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 20:17:06 -0000

On 18 June 2011 06:45, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:

> I see the proposed HTML5 specification has the following
> text (Section 2.6.1):

| This specification defines the URL about:legacy-compat as
| a reserved, though unresolvable, about: URI, for use in
| DOCTYPEs in HTML documents when needed
| for compatibility with XML tools. [ABOUT]

Thanks for that note, I vaguely recalled this oddity when I
tried to send my about: draft comments to this list, but
forgot to mention it.

I think this pseudo-URL doesn't do anything apart from
filling a slot where a syntactically valid URL is expected.

If that's the case I wonder why they don't pick about:blank
for this purpose.  I'm not hot about it -- I anyway dislike
the concepts of no HTML5 DTD and no proper HTML5
DOCTYPE version.

> This specification defines the URL about:srcdoc as a
> reserved, though unresolvable, about: URI, that is
> used as the document's address of iframe srcdoc
> documents. [ABOUT]

If that is a good idea (I didn't know it and have no time
to check it today) independent of HTML5 it should be
added to the about: draft.

> Moreover, the [ABOUT] references the well-known
> draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme which we have had
> a lot of discussions on.

Well, it should.  The about: draft should be an RFC long
before HTML5 arrives at its "last last call" in 2012.  The
WhatWG HTML is no problem, it's a moving target and
can be updated whenever the WhatWG folks feel like it.

> Probably the same is with 'javascript' URIs (Section 6.1.5).
> It references [JSURL], the draft-hoehrmann-javascript-
> scheme, which is now expired.  It includes-by-reference
> the source code retrieval operation for these URIs
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoehrmann-javascript-
> scheme-03#section-3.1).

I recall an old version of this brave attempt to document
javascript: URLs, and various essential points were
unclear in the 2006 draft.  But now there's a newer draft
(expired in March 2011), maybe it's ready before HTML5.

> I propose not to include it by reference but rather
> describe in the specification itself.  The algorithm
> contains only 4 steps so it shouldn't be a problem.

If what you want is simple it should better be done in the
javascript:  URL draft.  And as long as the new draft says
"you really do not want to do this" at least once per page
and subsection I might even like it now. ;-)

> The [MAILTO] references the document which was
> obsoleted by RFC 6068.
[etc.]

Yes, but as Mark said that's not the business of the IETF
Apps list.  Hopefully the W3C HTML5 Last Call FAQ
meanwhile manages to identify which of the numerous
HTML drafts is the "first last call" version, e.g., giving an
immutable URL of this draft would be a good thing in the
FAQ.  And it should specify where interested users can
post comments (without preconditions above a working
mail address).