Last Call comments to HTML5

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Last Call comments to HTML5

Mykyta Yevstifeyev
Hello,

Mark Nottingham, who is IETF/W3C liaison, notified folks at the IETF that HTML WG started LC on HTML5 specifications.  I'd like to provide some comments with regard to URIs in the HTML5 specification.  (This message was initially sent to [hidden email] list).  Some additions are in-line.

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.
Currently, this Internet-Draft is being actively discussed at IETF; we haven't reached some stable consensus with regard to it.  See archives at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/maillist.html for these discussions.

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 [hidden email] list so I'll forward the LC announcement there to encourage their feedback.
I've already sent a note to this list.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev

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
[hidden email]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Last Call comments to HTML5

Michael[tm] Smith
In response to the following message:

  http://www.w3.org/mid/4DFC5AC4.7030105@...

... the following bug has been raised in the W3C Bugzilla database:

  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12986

You are encouraged to add yourself to the CC List for the bug -- which
will require that you create a W3C Bugzilla user account (if you don't
have one already):

  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/createaccount.cgi