On May 27, 2009, at 10:15 , Jean-Claude Dufourd wrote: > Arve Bersvendsen a écrit : >> The main issue here, I think, is one of being proactive on this >> front. Given that absolute URIs are required for resolution, and >> that UA vendors will, unless specified, have to pick a URI scheme >> of their own, the situation may well arise where they have >> specified something that would either be insecure (eg. file:), >> incompatible ( again, file:) or inappropriate (all schemes that >> fail to make query strings and fragment identifiers useful) >> > JCD: I am unconfortable with such thinking that standards makers > somehow know better than implementors (and I am a standard maker). As it happens, Arve is an implementer. > This is a case where you would expose the problem in an informative > part of the spec and propose (not mandate) a working solution to > implementers. I don't see how that would work — how does an optional specification help interoperability. > If it is not seen by the author But, as has been explained before, it is. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2009 14:49:32 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 October 2015 13:55:28 UTC