- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 05:48:02 -0500
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote: > > Henri Sivonen wrote: >> ... >> Thus, "about:sgml-compat" is *not* interpreted as a URI by any >> conforming HTML5 consumer. In my opinion, it is therefore unnecessary >> for it to be of the form of a URI in a registered scheme. What about XHTML5? >> The point of making it *look* like an absolute URI (i.e. have a colon >> in the magic string) is to avoid useless GET requests to URIs relative >> to the document URI in a situation where a piece of software goes and >> dereferences the magic string as if it were a URI. >> ... > > Existing software expects a URI-reference here > (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.4.1>), so > yes, it's good not to use a relative-ref, but similarly, it's also good > to use a registered URI scheme if we choose an (absolute) URI instead. > >> The point of suggesting "about" as the string before the colon was >> that due to pre-existing special use in browsers, it won't be feasible >> for anyone to register "about" as a URI scheme for another purpose. >> >> The 'tag' URI scheme is less suitable, because 'tag' URIs by their >> nature include non-mnemonic strings which make them harder to memorize. > > I don't see why that is a problem. The *only* reason why we're > introducing this doctype variant is to get rid of validator warnings. So > I would expect those who use it to properly type it, otherwise they'll > notice. > >> Furthermore, the date in the 'tag' URI scheme is dangerously close to >> being a version number, and one of the design goals was to avoid >> putting anything that resembles a version number into the doctype. >> >> The problem with 'urn' is that there are actual URN resolvers that map >> a subset of URNs onto dereferencable URIs. Even if the 'w3c' URN >> scheme went nowhere, finding out that it goes nowhere could still >> cause waste in theoretically possibly scenarios. Using about: >> addresses even that mostly theoretical case. > > That's *very* theoretical. > > For instance, the urn:uuid: scheme is used all over the place (yes, not > in HTML pages). As far as I can tell, it hasn't caused any problems yet. All of this input may be useful to the editor, and I expect that he will take it all into account. Unless I missed it, I don't see any "can't live with" problems identified by either Henri or Julian with any of the URI schemes mentioned above. So unless I hear otherwise, I expect that both of you will be willing to live with whatever the editor may decide. > Best regards, Julian - Sam Ruby
Received on Sunday, 25 January 2009 10:48:36 UTC