Re: ACTION-103, was: Registering the about: URI scheme

Julian Reschke wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Joseph A Holsten wrote:
>>> A new draft should be published very soon. Once that's up, I  
>>> intend to discuss registration on uri-review. I've still got a few  
>>> outstanding questions about handling unknown about URIs, whether  
>>> the reference to HTML5 should be normative, and the appropriate  
>>> origin policy for about URIs besides about:blank. Just minor issues.
>>> If you'd like to see the changes so far, see
>> Joseph, any news on this?
>> Best regards, Julian
> It seems we are not making progress on this anymore. Which is very  
> unfortunate, because if we don't, we'll have to resolve ISSUE-54 (< 
> >) differently.
> So...
> 1) Joseph, any news on the new draft? In case you tried submitting  
> it and failed, please follow up with me and/or the IETF secretariat.
Apologies, I've let my final semester stand in the way of my  
obligation to all of you. I've been in contact with the IETF, and  
resubmitted the updated draft today. I screwed up some dates, versions  
in the draft, but the current submission should be accepted and ready  
for uri review. I'll be pushing the draft into uri-review as soon as I  
hear back from the IETF secretary.

> 2) I'm still concerned by the normative reference to HTML5 in the  
> version dated April 3 (< 
> >):
>>   The HTML representation of the URI about:blank MUST use the origin
>>   and the effective script origin as defined by HTML5 Section 5.4
>>   Origin [W3C.WD-html5]. The origin of the about:blank Document is  
>> set
>>   when the Document is created. If the new browsing context has a
>>   creator browsing context, then the origin of the about:blank  
>> Document
>>   is the origin of the creator Document. Otherwise, the origin of the
>>   about:blank Document is a globally unique identifier assigned when
>>   the new browsing context is created.
> In order to avoid a circular normative reference between two specs  
> by two different SDOs, I'd propose to move that requirement into the  
> HTML5 spec instead.
I agree, but that means that about: can't be standardized until HTML  
is standardized. Unless about: has no HTML-specific origin policy at  
all, this section is just going to beg questions.

Since about: is really designed for application-local resources, it  
seems reasonable to leave origin policy to more application oriented  
specs. Of course, since the only apps that actually implement about:  
uris are browsers, that's just a pedantic strawman.

So the frame becomes, is it worthwhile to have an application agnostic  
position? If so, is it possible to spec the origin policy free of  
HTML5, or should it say nothing? Otherwise, how does the spec remove  
reference to a changing HTML5 spec without cramping HTML's style?

Joseph Holsten

Received on Saturday, 9 May 2009 04:52:28 UTC