Re: ISSUE-29 (scope-uri-schemes): Should the HTML 5 specification introduce URI schemes such as javascript:? [HTML Principles/Requirements]

On Jan 23, 2008, at 19:59, Mark Baker wrote:

> IMO, it should be provisionally registered as its obviously in very
> widespread use, and I have no issues with it being part of HTML 5...
> though the registration should follow the template in sec 5.4 of RFC
> 4395.
> This is assuming there's no problem treating the HTML 5 spec as an
> IETF contribution per RFC 3978 (see sec 5.2 of RFC 4395).  If that's a
> problem then it will have to be with a separate Internet Draft.

I think javascript: needs to be treated as grandfathered even if  
registered after the IRI RFC. Otherwise, the conformance requirements  
will be annoying and unpractical. That is, it is counter-intuitive to  
apply the generic IRI syntax to javascript:.
(and follow-ups)

Henri Sivonen

Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 19:05:04 UTC