- From: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:55:33 +0100
- To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: <public-html-comments@w3.org>
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > Yeah, only the "blank" space needs some level of interoperability. > The rest can be left up to clients. What would it take to register > this? An informational RFC will do, for examples trying to use the *new* URI scheme registration rules in RFC 4395 see http://rtg.ietf.org/~fenner/ietf/deps/index.cgi?dep=4395 For approval the RFC needs a review on the IETF URI list, but for serious questions better use the W3C URI list. In essence RFC 4395 tells you what's required in the IANA considerations (registration template), and that there has to be a review (that catches nonsense, e.g. folks trying to register *IRI* instead of URI schemes without bothering to read RFC 3987 before, let alone RFC 4395 ;-) For about: you likely don't need any I18N considerations. But you certainly need security considerations (scripts trying to grab sensitive data with about:, some typical counter-measures, the works). Add an intro explaining what about: is, that it is used by several independent implementations, why about:blank should be interoperable, ready. Add normative + informative references as always, the whole text (minus boilerplates) doesn't need to be more than 5 KB. If you want to try your luck with "xml2rfc", but without the pain to learn its syntax, maybe grab... http://xyzzy.webhop.info/home/test/draft-ellermann-news-nntp-uri-08.xml ...as an example (of course far too long for about:, but it's tested xml2rfc input resulting in an Internet draft) Frank
Received on Monday, 28 January 2008 20:55:27 UTC