On Jan 23, 2008, at 19:59, Mark Baker wrote: > 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. I think javascript: needs to be treated as grandfathered even if registered after the IRI RFC. Otherwise, the conformance requirements will be annoying and unpractical. That is, it is counter-intuitive to apply the generic IRI syntax to javascript:. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007Nov/0084.html (and follow-ups) -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 19:05:04 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:12 GMT