W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms@w3.org > December 2009

RE: XMLHttpRequest Comments from W3C Forms WG

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:01:42 -0800
To: "Klotz, Leigh" <Leigh.Klotz@xerox.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
CC: Forms WG <public-forms@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D308C3D@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
I think Boris' message is misleading, not sure if intentionally so.

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8207

The bug is still open, has not been closed, and the IETF working group to
complete the IRI document so that it is (among other things) suitable
for a normative reference has apparently been approved.

There should be no need -- and there are no plans to update, progress,
or publish --  http://www.w3.org/html/wg/href/draft.

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net


-----Original Message-----
From: public-webapps-request@w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Klotz, Leigh
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 2:23 PM
To: Boris Zbarsky
Cc: WebApps WG; Forms WG
Subject: RE: XMLHttpRequest Comments from W3C Forms WG

Boris,
Thank you for the clarification.  Surely then this ought to be fixed with an IETF or W3C document describing this fact, and not by requiring all future specifications which use URLs to reference the HTML5 document.  

Is it defined in http://www.w3.org/html/wg/href/draft ?

If so, perhaps that document needs to have a better title than "Web Addresses in HTML5" if it's already in use in user agents in practice in web reality?  

Thank you,
Leigh.

-----Original Message-----
From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbarsky@MIT.EDU] 
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 2:17 PM
To: Klotz, Leigh
Cc: WebApps WG; Forms WG
Subject: Re: XMLHttpRequest Comments from W3C Forms WG

On 12/17/09 2:10 PM, Klotz, Leigh wrote:
> I'd be surprised if some of these aren't terms already defined elsewhere.  "URL" for example, is surely not given a different definition in HTML5 from the definition in RFC 3986.

As it happens, it is.  There are various strings that are defined to not be a URL in RFC 3986 terms (as in, don't match the production) but are used on the web in practice and which handling needs to be defined for.

In other words, RFC 3986 is pretty well divorced from web reality; a UA trying to actually implement it ends up not compatible with the web.

-Boris
Received on Saturday, 19 December 2009 04:03:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 October 2013 22:06:53 UTC