- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 09:25:42 +0200
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:06:14 +0200, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote: >> Somebody suggested "HTML URL" on uri@w3.org - I think that's a better >> option because its makes the distinction more apparent. > > Since I'd expect, e.g. XMLHttpRequest and other specifications to adopt I wouldn't expect that. Why hardwire IRI-incompatibilities into XHR when IE currently doesn't handle IRIs at all for XHR? Why not do the right thing at least here???? > ... BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 28 June 2008 07:26:26 UTC