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

Re: ***DHSPAM*** Re: 4.13: URI decomposition - non-standard terminology

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 10:26:32 +0000 (UTC)
To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
Cc: public-html-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0807121016580.28237@hixie.dreamhostps.com>

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> 
> Whatever he had in mind, IFF it was <hostport>, then yes, this is marked 
> as "obsolete terminology" in appendix D.2 of STD 66, your expansion host 
> [":" port] is precisely what it used to be, but you could as well avoid 
> to talk about <hostport>.

The term "hostport" in HTML5 isn't intended to be the old RFC2396 
terminology, it's meant to be a special term defined just in HTML5 for the 
purposes of defining the legacy "host" DOM attribute in the Location 
object. Could you elaborate on how we would avoid using this definition 
while still specifying the same thing here? It's unclear to me what you 
have in mind.


> > The default port numbers are all here:
> >    http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
> 
> Not really, these are reserved ports per protocol, this doesn't tell you 
> which URI schemes are associated with which protocol. E.g., "news:" is 
> no protocol, and "nntps" is no URI scheme, but "nntp" is a protocol and 
> an URI scheme, and has a reserved port.

Fair enough. This will get dealt with when I deal with bug 5859.


> > Could you give a code example that illustrates the case you're 
> > concerned about?
> 
> <http://example.com:> and <http://example.com:/> are allowed in the STD 
> 66 syntax. [Firefox 2] ignores the colon, apparently, I've no tool to 
> see what it actually does at the moment.  I'm not sure what it does with 
> <http://example.com:0x50>, but apparently it tries example.com:50.  New 
> test with <http://example.com:0x80>, I get example.com:80. [...] Your 
> draft says that it should try example.com:0 But I don't see the point, 
> why not just say "invalid URI" and give up, if the port is nonsense ?

It's not clear to me how you tested this. Are we still talking about the 
URL decomposition attributes, or are you testing something else?

An actual concrete example of the source of an HTML page which shows the 
test you are talking about would go a long way towards clarifying this.

Also, I recommend testing with a modern browser; Firefox 2 is several 
years old now and has been obsoleted by Firefox 3, which has numerous 
standards compliance fixes that may affect your testing.


> > Which version of the spec are you reading that it doesn't have a 
> > section 5.9.8?
> 
> The first link in <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/html5/> is the latest 
> published version <http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/>, and that has no section 
> 5.9.8, chapter 5 ends with 5.6.

Ah, I see. The "latest published version" is a W3C anachronism and will 
almost always be obsolete before it is published. I encourage you to use 
the editor's draft:

   http://whatwg.org/html5

...which is a multipage copy that represents the very latest state of the 
specification. Given the rapid rate of development of this specification 
it is most helpful if people reviewing the spec can review the most recent 
text, otherwise talking at cross-purposes will be common.

Cheers,
-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 12 July 2008 10:27:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 1 June 2011 00:13:59 GMT