- From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:06:19 +0100
- To: Joseph A Holsten <joseph@josephholsten.com>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Joseph A Holsten wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I've posted the merged version of Lachlan and my drafts here: > http://josephholsten.com/about-uri-scheme/draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme.txt > > with inline comments and editing marks in html here: > http://josephholsten.com/about-uri-scheme/draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme.html > > and source control here: > http://github.com/josephholsten/about-uri-scheme/ > > My changes mostly amount to adding the required IANA and Security > Considerations sections. > > As to whether different browsers use the exact same representation of > the about:blank resource, I think that is content type specific > decision, and belongs in the HTML5 spec. I'd care more that the DOM is > identical than the actual document. The text "If the application may use a document of MIME type 'text/html' and character encoding 'UTF-8', about:blank SHOULD be represented with an empty document. Other representations are not defined." is confusing. Specifically the use of "may" in the first sentence seems wrong (in the English grammar sense). It seems like the actual requirement is that HTML 5 UAs must represent about:blank as an empty (or close-to-empty) document (this seems like it is a must since it is required for web-compat.). Note that there seem to be a bunch of magic things about scripting about:blank documents (I'm not sure of the details); I don't know if the plan is to spec these here or defer to HTML 5 (the latter seems more sensible to me). If it is indeed the latter, I guess a reference to HTML 5 is needed here. I guess it also makes sense (and is the secondary requirement that you are trying to express) for things that are not HTML 5 UAs but can do something with text/html documents to see about:blank as an empty document. This indeed seems like a should-level condition.
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 13:04:45 UTC