Re: HTML5-warnings - request to publish as next heartbeat WD

Manu Sporny wrote:
> ...
>> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> I think that note should be rephrased; as far as I can tell, W3C, WHATWG
>> and IETF people are working together to improve the situation. The main
>> risk here is that revising RFC3987 (IRI) may take longer than we all
>> wish, due to unrelated issues.
> I can re-word it to be less adversarial - could you suggest some
> language that would be acceptable to you?
> ...

Your note current says:

"This section is unstable, violates existing RFCs and may be updated in 
future versions of this specification.

There is a forthcoming IRI specification that would challenge the 
normative nature of this section. The terminology used in this section 
is a willful violation of RFC 3986 and is expected to be challenged by 
members of the IETF."

This would have been true something like 10 months ago, but in the mean 
time, the text has been factored out into a separate spec by Dan C, and 
later on integrated into 

So the remaining problems I see are the use of the term "URL", and the 
fact that the "WEBADDRESSES" reference leads nowhere.

A more accurate warning might be:

"This section normatively refers to a 'Web Addresses' specification that 
is work-in-progress; also, usage of the term 'URL' for things that are 
not URLs as defined in RFC 3986 remains controversial."

>> Optimally, the "hyperlink auditing" (a/@ping) section should be
>> mentioned as well.
> I'd be happy to mark this section as controversial as long as there is
> an explanation or discussion related to why that section should be
> marked. I don't necessarily see the issue with the @ping feature at
> first glance, so I wouldn't feel good marking it as controversial
> without understanding why it is controversial.
> ...

This is actually issue *1* :-), see 

> ...

BR, Julian

Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 08:16:46 UTC