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

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

Mykyta,

Just to make sure it's clear -- while it's fine to discuss things here to see if other IETFers agree, if you want your feedback to be noticed by the HTML WG, you'll need to submit it to them using the procedures they outline in the document. 

I've already forwarded the announcement to the IRI list, FWIW.

Cheers,



On 17/06/2011, at 9:45 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> 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]
>> 
>> 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]
>> 
> Moreover, the [ABOUT] references the well-known draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme which we have had a lot of discussions on.  Considering that there isn't a strong decision on this draft, I'd recommend W3C not to include this text in the proposed document.  Mentioning that "about:legacy-compat" is to be used for a specific purpose in Section 8.1.1 (the same is with "about:srcdoc") seems fine to me.
> 
> 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 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.
> 
> An editorial comment.  I see the document using such terms as "mailto: URL", "data: URL", "javascript: URL" etc.  An example is (Section 2.1.1):
> 
>> The term data: URL refers to URLs that use the data: scheme.
> Considering the string before "URL" identifies the scheme, I'd recommend not to include ":" (colon) their, since this character isn't a part of the scheme name (but rather a delimiter).  Having "scheme URL" or " 'scheme' URL " (I personally prefer the last) is OK.
> 
> With regard to references.  The [MAILTO] references the document which was obsoleted by RFC 6068.  [COOKIES] has become RFC 6265 (the link should be fixed).  References to Internet-Drafts should be given as "Work in Progress" per RFC 2026.
> 
> Probably Section 2.6, as well as some other URI-related stuff, can be interested for some people on [e-mail] list so I'll forward the LC announcement there to encourage their feedback.
> 
> All the best,
> Mykyta Yevstifeyev 
> 
> 17.06.2011 23:45, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> [ with my IETF/W3C Liaison hat on ]
>> 
>> The W3C has announced a Last Call on the HTML5 specification; see:
>>  
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/02/htmlwg-pr.html
>> 
>> 
>> The IETF has been encouraged to provide feedback, especially regarding HTML's use of and interface with IETF technologies.
>> 
>> For background on Last Call in their process, see:
>>  
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call
>> 
>> 
>> and the specification itself:
>>  
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/
>> 
>> paying special attention to the 'status of this document' section for information about the Last Call and how to provide feedback.
>> 
>> See also their LC FAQ:
>>  
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/05/html5lc-faq.html
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham   
>> http://www.mnot.net/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> apps-discuss mailing list
>> 
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/