- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 20:28:47 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11380 Summary: 2.6.1 - unhelpful and vague note - needs more specifics Product: HTML WG Version: unspecified Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) AssignedTo: ian@hixie.ch ReportedBy: glenn@skynav.com QAContact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org CC: mike@w3.org, public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org, public-html@w3.org The note at the end of 2.6.1: "The term "URL" in this specification is used in a manner distinct from the precise technical meaning it is given in RFC 3986. Readers familiar with that RFC will find it easier to read this specification if they pretend the term "URL" as used herein is really called something else altogether. This is a willful violation of RFC 3986. [RFC3986]" is both vague and unhelpful. In what ways is the meaning of URL in the HTML5 spec distinct from the meaning given in 3986? In what way is this usage a willful violation of 3986. Please add specifics, or at least one or more examples of distinctness. This note is also confusing in the light of the earlier statement in 2.6.1: "URL is a valid URL if at least one of the following conditions holds: The URL is a valid URI reference [RFC3986]..." Regards, Glenn -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 22 November 2010 20:28:49 UTC