IMO, it should be provisionally registered as its obviously in very widespread use, and I have no issues with it being part of HTML 5... though the registration should follow the template in sec 5.4 of RFC 4395. This is assuming there's no problem treating the HTML 5 spec as an IETF contribution per RFC 3978 (see sec 5.2 of RFC 4395). If that's a problem then it will have to be with a separate Internet Draft. Mark. On 1/23/08, HTML Issue Tracking Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: > > ISSUE-29 (scope-uri-schemes): Should the HTML 5 specification introduce URI schemes such as javascript:? [HTML Principles/Requirements] > > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/ > > Raised by: Dan Connolly > On product: HTML Principles/Requirements > > Frank Ellermann writes: > > [[ > The draft claiming to be the "5th revision of HTML" introduces > a javascript: "protocol" for URLs > ]] > -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2008Jan/0010..html > > Our charter doesn't mention specification of URI schemes. > http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html > > Is this something that can be done in a separate document? or by a different group? > > > > > -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.comReceived on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 18:00:10 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:12 GMT