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

[Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[e-mail]>]

19.06.2011 23:16, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> On 18 June 2011 06:45, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>
> [ . . . ]
>> This specification defines the URLabout: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.
We discussed the idea to add these two about URIs in the draft and 
decided not to do this and leave reservation to the HTML5 itself.
>> 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.
We haven't currently reached a consensus whether to create or not the 
possibility to reserve the about URI tokens, as far as you know.  It's 
better for HTML5 to mention the above URIs as "used for a specific 
purpose" and later, if about URI draft progresses with the above 
possibility, they may be included by reference.
>> 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.
The draft is currently expired.  If Bjoern is ready to reopen work on 
it, then this shouldn't be a problem.
>> 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.
That draft isn't going to progress, as I see; see below.
>   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. ;-)
Best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev
>> 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).
>