W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-forms@w3.org > December 2011

Re: Why is https: optional?

From: John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 08:46:36 -0800
To: "Steven Pemberton" <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>
Cc: "Forms WG" <public-forms@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF9DD00170.DAD0CCFE-ON88257959.005BAF17-88257959.005C2955@ca.ibm.com>
Hi Steven,

It isn't optional, it is recommended.

The status of the scheme https scheme predates my start time as an editor, 
so I have a less clear recollection why it would be so, but I seem to 
vaguely recall some ancient discussions about uses of XForms beyond the 
mainstream, e.g. uses in places that have limited access to encryption 
security software or on limited devices e.g. mobile devices in the 2002-3 
timeframe.

Not clear whether it has to stay this way, but still the status as a 
"should" means that implementers have to implement it unless there is a 
good *technical* (not economic) reason to leave it out, so it's not the 
same as optional.

Cheers,
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
Distinguished Engineer, IBM Forms and Smarter Web Applications
IBM Canada Software Lab, Victoria
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com 

Blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer
Blog RSS feed: 
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/rss/JohnBoyer?flavor=rssdw





From:   "Steven Pemberton" <Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl>
To:     "Forms WG" <public-forms@w3.org>
Date:   01/12/2011 08:09 AM
Subject:        Why is https: optional?



http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/wiki/XForms_2.0#Submission_Options

"Other bindings, in particular to the URI scheme "mailto:" may, and the 
schemes "https:" and "file:" should, be supported."

I understand why mailto: and file: are optional, but not https:. Can 
anyone enlighten me?

Steven
Received on Thursday, 1 December 2011 16:47:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 October 2013 22:06:56 UTC