W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: review of A&E

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:26:53 +0200
Cc: Max Froumentin <maxfro@opera.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5197FD1F-CDCE-438E-87D8-76611A639D74@berjon.com>
To: marcosc@opera.com
On Apr 23, 2009, at 12:36 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> 3. [User Agents] "A user agent is an implementation" a bit vague.  
>> Perhaps some of the text in the following note should be move here,  
>> to refine the definition.
>
> I changed it to "A user agent is software that implements the
> application programming interfaces defined in this specification. A
> user agent must behave as described by this specification in order to
> claim conformance."

I can't seem to dig it up right now, but IIRC there's something in the  
QA documents that defines this which can be reused.

>> 15. [The openURL() Method] Why couldn't this be generalised to open  
>> URI, including mailto:, tel: and more?
>>
> Right: changed it to:
>
> "The openURL(url) method takes a valid URI as an argument. When
> invoked, the url should be opened with the appropriate protocol
> handler for the given URI. If there is no such protocol handler or
> urlis not a valid URI, then the user agent must act as if the method
> was not invoked.."

Should we make it clear that the UA is allowed to ask the user for a  
handler for a given scheme?

Also note that a scheme doesn't necessarily uniquely map to a  
protocol, so it should probably say "scheme handler".

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
     Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Thursday, 23 April 2009 12:27:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:31 GMT