W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > November 2010

[Bug 11380] New: 2.6.1 - unhelpful and vague note - needs more specifics

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 20:28:47 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-11380-2486@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>

           Summary: 2.6.1 - unhelpful and vague note - needs more
           Product: HTML WG
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson)
        AssignedTo: ian@hixie.ch
        ReportedBy: glenn@skynav.com
         QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
                CC: mike@w3.org, public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org,

The note at the end of 2.6.1:

"The term "URL" in this specification is used in a manner distinct from the
precise technical meaning it is given in RFC 3986. Readers familiar with that
RFC will find it easier to read this specification if they pretend the term
"URL" as used herein is really called something else altogether. This is a
willful violation of RFC 3986. [RFC3986]"

is both vague and unhelpful.

In what ways is the meaning of URL in the HTML5 spec distinct from the meaning
given in 3986? In what way is this usage a willful violation of 3986. Please
add specifics, or at least one or more examples of distinctness.

This note is also confusing in the light of the earlier statement in 2.6.1:

"URL is a valid URL if at least one of the following conditions holds: The URL
is a valid URI reference [RFC3986]..."


Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 22 November 2010 20:28:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:31:01 UTC