- From: Doug Turner <dougt@dougt.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 07:32:49 -0800
- To: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "public-geolocation@w3.org" <public-geolocation@w3.org>
On Nov 15, 2010, at 7:27 AM, Adrian Bateman wrote: > On Friday, November 12, 2010 10:21 PM, Doug Turner wrote: >> Hey Adrian! >> >> Yeah, probably misleading. Basically, I think, we want to use the origin. >> >> f.e. http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/geolocation/ ==> >> http://www.mozilla.com >> >> I think there was some panic about referencing documents that were not >> recommendations, but we were thinking about: >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/origin-0.html#origin >> >> Does this make sense? >> Doug > > Hi Doug, > > I understand the serialisation - I think the issue with the TAG is that the canonicalised origin isn't actually a URI so they wanted the language changed to clarify this. My problem is that there is a MUST requirement that UAs display this string but as far as I can see, nobody actually does (the implementations I've seen don't show the "http://" part). > > My question, therefore, is does it make sense that this is a MUST? Since we need to go back and change the language around URI anyway perhaps we could consider making these only SHOULDs. > > Thanks, > > Adrian. I'd like the consideration section to reflect the intent we had. I would rather have us leave the MUST but change what we meant to be displayed to the user. Maybe "HOST of the requesting document". There are probably others with a better name for this field. Doug
Received on Monday, 15 November 2010 15:33:25 UTC