- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 19:33:22 +0200
- To: "'Ian Jacobs'" <ij@w3.org>, "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>, "'Shane McCarron'" <shane@aptest.com>, "'Robin Berjon'" <robin@w3.org>, <spec-prod@w3.org>, "'Dom Hazael-Massieux'" <dom@w3.org>
On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:20 PM, Ian Jacobs wrote: > On Aug 14, 2013, at 12:17 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote: > >> And anyhow, couldn't you have respec generate relative URIs starting with > >> //w3.org/...? That way they get whichever of http: or https: the > original page was fetched with. -T > > > > Not if you're doing local edits, and thus viewing it at a file: url, > > as Robin said. > > That comes back to the point that perhaps in "editor's draft" mode > respec does one thing, then in "ready to publish" mode it does another. As Robin already said. We tried a couple of things. All that smartness had negative side effects (just look at a copy in a Mercurial repo which is by default https) and using https by default doesn't have any AFAICT. So I would like to keep https for these two. -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2013 17:33:56 UTC