- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:07:39 +0100
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Sam Ruby wrote: > 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? XHTML can either omit the DOCTYPE or use <!DOCTYPE html>. This compatibility DOCTYPE is not intended for use in XHTML, which is why it says "sgml-compat" and not "xml-compat". However, if it does get used in XHTML, it still isn't intended to be resolved. Non-validating parsers will ignore it as usual. Validating parsers that attempt to resolve it will fail, which is the point. But it shouldn't be a fatal error. >>> 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. If the about: scheme gets registered, will that address your concern? -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Sunday, 25 January 2009 12:08:21 UTC