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

Re: review of A&E

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:12:17 +0200
Message-ID: <b21a10670904240212haef42e3j6f8fe4a1d2987e6f@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: Max Froumentin <maxfro@opera.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:
> 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".

Right. I thought the same thing. I used "protocol handler" to be
consistent with HTML5.

-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Friday, 24 April 2009 09:13:19 GMT

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