In that case, the name http-request may become misleading, though I guess that's not a big deal if the HTTP and/or HTTPS schemes are required, so I personally support this move. It would be especially useful if XProc was to be implemented on the client side by browsers - imagine being able to test if a scheme is available by running an arbitrary request on it and check for that particular dynamic error. Oh, the possibilities... BTW, with or without this change ==== It is a dynamic error (err:XC0021) if the scheme of the href attribute is not "http" or "https". ==== Should probably be reworded to something like ==== It is a dynamic error (err:XC0021) if the scheme of the resolved URI of the href attribute is not supported by the implementation. ==== Because the value of the "href" attribute can be relative, as specified below that, in which case it won't have a scheme. Also, saying '"http" or "https"' implies HTTPS is required. Why should it be? -----Original Message----- From: public-xml-processing-model-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xml-processing-model-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Norman Walsh Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 5:05 PM To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org Subject: http and https in p:http-request I really think it's a mistake to require the URI for http-request to be an http: or https: URI. There are lots of (unfortunately non-standard) URI schemes out there that are really just http with a different scheme name, e.g., ical: I don't see any reason why an implementation should be forbidden from understanding other schemes. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Everything should be made as simple as http://nwalsh.com/ | possible, but no simpler.Received on Monday, 8 October 2007 14:44:31 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:42 GMT