W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: HTML CHANGE PROPOSAL; change definition of URL to normative reference to IRIBIS

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:43:54 +0100
Message-ID: <4B84E6CA.1080602@gmx.de>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 24.02.2010 05:12, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> Hi Larry,
>
> On Jan 19, 2010, at 3:55 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:
>
>> I added ACTION-171 to myself to update this proposal.
>
> The chairs noted that we still do not have a proper Change Proposal on
> this issue. What has been submitted is scattered across multiple emails,
> and completely lacks Rationale.
>
> Since you submitted a partial effort, we have decided to extend the
> deadline for another week. At that point, if we do not have a proper
> Change Proposal, the issue will be closed without prejudice.
>
> The status page has been updated to reflect this:
> file:///Users/mjs/Work/src/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-056
>
> Regards,
> Maciej

I tried to make some more progress in at least *understanding* what the 
HTML5 requirements are, starting with test cases for the URL 
decomposition (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/urldecomp.html>) and 
subsequently by writing bug reports against the spec (see 
<http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9035> and 
<http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8953>).

There's also the known issue that WEBADDRESSES contains stuff that need 
to go back into HTML5 (<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/href/draft>, Part 3 
depends on specifics of HTML and the DOM).

I can't say that I found the feedback over here productive -- so it'll 
be hard to make progress on IRIbis. My recommendation to the IRIbis WG 
is to mostly ignore the WEBADDRESSES document, unless somebody steps in 
who's willing to explain rationales, and also provide explanations about 
why certain things that are in there are considered relevant for 
compatibility, when testing shows they are not interoperably implemented 
today.

Summarizing: the current state is a mess, and it *will* need to be 
cleaned up, no matter what the WG status of ISSUE-56 is.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2010 08:44:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:02 GMT