W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-comments@w3.org > July 2008

Re: 4.13: URI decomposition - non-standard terminology

From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 03:54:02 +0200
To: public-html-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <g592qn$kn$1@ger.gmane.org>

Ian Hickson wrote:
>> But there is no <hostport> in STD 66 outside of appendix D.2 about
>> obsolete terminology.
> Please follow the link given in that section to find the definition
> of <hostport>.

I did, but I'm not going to try it again now, many HTML5 links lead
to a monstrous "editor's copy", where "bastard browser from hell"
stopped loading before the relevant section.

> we don't really have any choice as to what the API's semantics are.

Well, you have "treat an explicit given default port like no port,
depending on the scheme", IMHO that is good.  I can't tell if the
default port is always clear for various old and/or obscure schemes.
>> port = *DIGIT, WTH is an empty port introduced by a colon ?
> I don't understand this paragraph.

*DIGIT means "zero or more digits", and "zero digits" gives you an
empty <port> after the colon in your <hostport>.  I've no clue what
an empty <port> is.  Your draft discusses other potential issues,
ending up with port 0 in these cases.  FWIW, port 0 is reserved.

>> More interesting, what's an empty fragment introduced by "#" ?
>> Various browsers interpret this as "top of file" for text/html.
> I don't really understand what you're asking here. Does section
> 5.9.8 Navigating to a fragment identifier answer what you were
> asking?

Maybe, but there is yet no section 5.9.8 in the public version that
BBFH can load.  Plan B, use IE6 for interesting tasks when you have
no Lynx or Netscape 3.x, CPU load goes to 88% (BBFH takes 99%) for 
minutes...  yes, 5.9.8 clause 2 does precisely what I want, thanks.

Received on Saturday, 12 July 2008 01:54:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:25 UTC