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 17:21:25 +0200
To: public-html-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <g5ai4i$gq6$1@ger.gmane.org>

Julian Reschke wrote:
> your UA bashing over here is pointless and really distracting

When I need another UA to read the HTML5 draft this upsets me.
The question what's a valid port, or a valid URL, and what not,
is quite interesting.

> in particular the position that Netscape 3.x could be in some
> way better than FF

I liked it, as you know.  Without CSS and with disabled JS 1.1
it was not in the position to get anything about it wrong.  It
also had no trouble with huge files, it crashed.  I doubt that
it already supported IPv6 literals, but I never tested it.  And
I agree that we don't need to discuss bugs and missing features
in this vintage 1998 monster wrt HTML5 2011, nobody is going to
change it.  

Identifying domain literals, including hex. IPv4 formats, was
recently discussed on various lists, and as far as I can tell
it this is unambiguous from an STD 66 POV...  

> Can we please stick to the contents of the HTML5 spec?

...stick to STD 66, don't invent new URLs.  Don't do whatever
some browsers do if existing standards are better for the job
at hand.

Received on Saturday, 12 July 2008 15:21:40 UTC

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