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

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:37:25 -0800
Cc: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <608D7D1F-2F2D-4EC8-93E2-C2E1E05CCC53@apple.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>

Thanks for providing the details! And thanks for all the progress on  
this front in general.

I'd appreciate it if HTML Working Group members could study the  
differences (if any) in normative requirements between this text and  
the current draft-duerst-iri-bis vs. the old text plus Web Address, so  
we can determine whether we need to propose changes to IRIbis. (One  
small one I spotted while skimming: Under the new text, any IRI would  
count as a "valid URL", even ones that use non-ASCII characters in the  
query portion and thus would be processed differently under Web  
Address processing than vanilla IRI processing; while with the old  
text these would not be valid.).

  - Maciej

On Nov 28, 2009, at 2:16 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:

> Regarding ISSUE-56, and applying the results of ACTION-137 (pending  
> review):
>
> > Providing specific details for the requested change is a required  
> part of a Change Proposal, as stated here:
> > <http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#change-proposal
>
> The process does include "With prior permission from the chairs, a  
> high-level prose description of the changes to be made."
>
> Lacking this prior permission (which the previous change proposal  
> had unfortunately assumed), I’ll offer a more concrete proposed  
> rewrite (attached).  However, I think additional, more extensive  
> editorial work would be helpful. For example, using the term “HREF”  
> instead of “URL” in any normative text of the HTML5 specification  
> would avoid some of the circumlocutions in the definitions, but  
> would be a much more extensive editorial task than the edits to  
> 2.5.1 that I limited myself to in this change proposal.
>
> In addition, adjusting the documents from HTML5 and the IRI work in  
> IETF may require maintaining alignment of two different documents,  
> and if there are any further changes to the [draft-duerst-iri-bis]  
> document (based on rough consensus of the IRI working group which I  
> presume would including contributors from this community), then  
> coordination of the text in HTML5 and text in the IRI document will  
> be necessary.
>
> Larry
> --
> http://larry.masinter.net
>
>
> <iri-rewrite-draft.html>
Received on Sunday, 29 November 2009 06:38:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:54 UTC