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

Re: heads-up about "new" URLs section in HTML5 editor's draft

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:25:42 +0200
Message-ID: <4865E776.9020104@gmx.de>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:06:14 +0200, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote:
>> Somebody suggested "HTML URL" on uri@w3.org - I think that's a better
>> option because its makes the distinction more apparent.
> 
> Since I'd expect, e.g. XMLHttpRequest and other specifications to adopt 

I wouldn't expect that. Why hardwire IRI-incompatibilities into XHR when 
IE currently doesn't handle IRIs at all for XHR? Why not do the right 
thing at least here????

> ...

BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 28 June 2008 07:26:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:55 UTC