W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2009

RE: HTML CHANGE PROPOSAL; change definition of URL to normative reference to IRIBIS

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:57:59 -0800
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D0B1043@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
Re ISSUE-56:

You request two updates to the change proposal. One is to
include a (full? complete? exhaustive? summary?) rationale.
While proposed revised text itself does contain some of the rationale
within it, it isn't in the "Rationale" section. A simple rationale
might be be:

"URIs in HTML should not work differently than URIs in every other 
Internet application. It should be possible to copy a URI from a
HTML document and use it in other applications that use URIs.
If differences are necessary, they should be minimized and the 
documentation of the differences available in the same document 
(the IRI specification) used by other Internet standards."

along with the current rationale text which references
the previous arguments.

The second request is to assemble the pieces of the change
proposal into a single document. I agree this would be
useful, and I am  willing to volunteer to do it if
none of the 400 other HTML working group members in good
standing are willing.

However, 
http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html 
notes that ISSUE-56, is in the state
"Bug is still open and change has not been rejected by the editor."

Until that happens, it would make sense to me to wait,
as the editor response might make the change proposal
itself moot or require some modification.

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net


-----Original Message-----
From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:mjs@apple.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 11:41 AM
To: Larry Masinter
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTML CHANGE PROPOSAL; change definition of URL to normative reference to IRIBIS


Thanks for providing a Change Proposal for this issue! The chairs are  
reviewing Change Proposals to ensure that they meet the required  
structure. Here is our second round of feedback on this Change Proposal:

(1) The Rationale section does not appear to directly state rationale.  
There is a citation of the issue and general discussion, but a general  
citation of past discussion is not sufficient. A Change Proposal must  
directly state a rationale itself.

(2) It would be helpful to have all of the Change Proposal parts  
collected in a single document, for benefit of Working Group members  
reading it. Currently it is spread across two separate emails.

We suggest updating the Change Proposal to reflect the feedback in  
points (1) and (2).

Regards,
Maciej


On Dec 1, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:

> Re ISSUE-56 and ACTION-137:
>
>> 2) There does not appear to be a rationale. Please provide a  
>> Rationale
>> section.
>
> Here is a Rationale section:
> ================================================================
> Rationale:
>
> This issue has been discussed at length in the HTML working group.
>
> The original message from Roy Fielding which raised the issue,
> as well as additional pointers to discussions and rationales may be
> found
>
> * in the tracker entry for this issue:
>
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/56
>
> *  the action that led to this change proposal:
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/137
>
> *  discussion on:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-iri/
>
> Please see those discussions for more details.
> ===================================================================
>
>
> Larry
> --
> http://larry.masinter.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:mjs@apple.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 12:13 PM
> To: Larry Masinter
> Cc: public-html@w3.org; PUBLIC-IRI@W3.ORG; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: HTML CHANGE PROPOSAL; change definition of URL to  
> normative reference to IRIBIS
>
>
> Thanks for providing a Change Proposal for this issue! The chairs are
> reviewing Change Proposals to ensure that they meet the required
> structure. Here is our feedback on this Change Proposal:
>
> 1) Including the subsequently sent draft text, it seems to include
> sufficient summary, details and impact. The subject line seems like a
> fine one-sentence summary in fact.
>
> 2) There does not appear to be a rationale. Please provide a Rationale
> section.
>
> We suggest updating the Change Proposal to reflect the feedback in
> point (2).
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2009, at 12:20 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:
>
>> I have updated the proposed draft charter for IRI work in IETF:
>>
>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/DraftIriCharter
>>
>> to explicitly calls for the resulting document as being
>> suitable as a normative reference from HTML, and points
>> to a draft of HTML Editor Requirements at the end of
>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/IriWorkGoals.
>>
>> Please review, accept, or update as necessary, the "HTML
>> Editor Requirements" prior to IETF chartering of the
>> working group next Tuesday Nov 10.
>>
>> Assuming the liaison and requirements are acceptable as
>> part of the IETF IRI working group charter and we find
>> sufficient volunteers for editing, reviewing nad chairing,
>>
>> I offer a (vague, but I think workable)
>>
>> CHANGE PROPOSAL FOR HTML:
>>
>> Based on assuming
>> that those requirements are met: please replace the
>> definition of URL in the HTML5 specification and all
>> descriptions of URL processing in the HTML5 specification
>> with specific references to the [IRIBIS] document.
>>
>>
>> I think this includes sections such as
>>
>> * Determine whether a string best matches Relative
>> or Absolute, e.g., one might say:
>> "Determine whether Absolute or Relative as per [IRIBIS]"
>>
>> * Determine whether a string is or isn't valid an IRI
>> "Determine whether valid as per [IRIBIS]"
>>
>> * Offer heuristics for interpreting a user input
>> or other unvalidated string as an IRI
>> "User agents MAY interpret invalid strings as if
>> they were valid in cases where the input is
>> not otherwise validated, as per [IRIBIS]"
>>
>> * Resolve a relative IRI against a base
>>
>> As far as timing goes:
>>
>> Whenever you have a normative specification to another
>> specification which is, itself, under development,
>> there is some coordination necessary, but this request
>> is based on the assumption that it isn't necessary
>> to wait for the IRIBIS process to complete in order
>> for HTML5 to go to last call prior to its publication
>> as Proposed Recommendation.
>>
>> If there is not an IETF working group to update these
>> documents such that they are suitable for reference
>> by the HTML working group, then an appropriate change
>> proposal would be to put back in the HTML5-only
>> URL parsing algorithm that was there before the
>> [WEBADDRESS] specification was split out.
>>
>> Larry
>> -- 
>> http://larry.masinter.net
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 12 December 2009 05:58:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:55 UTC