- From: Jean-Claude Dufourd <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr>
- Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 10:15:13 +0200
- To: Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>
- CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, public-pkg-uri-scheme <public-pkg-uri-scheme@w3.org>
Arve Bersvendsen a écrit : > The main issue here, I think, is one of being proactive on this > front. Given that absolute URIs are required for resolution, and that > UA vendors will, unless specified, have to pick a URI scheme of their > own, the situation may well arise where they have specified something > that would either be insecure (eg. file:), incompatible ( again, > file:) or inappropriate (all schemes that fail to make query strings > and fragment identifiers useful) > JCD: I am unconfortable with such thinking that standards makers somehow know better than implementors (and I am a standard maker). This is a case where you would expose the problem in an informative part of the spec and propose (not mandate) a working solution to implementers. If it is not seen by the author, and not useful for interoperability, there is no reason to mandate a solution. Otherwise, you force extra technology on vendors, and that is a recipe for failing standards. Best regards JC PS: I agree with Thomas, but my tack is different. -- JC Dufourd Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group Traitement du Signal et Images/Signal and Image Processing Télécom ParisTech, 46 rue Barrault, 75 013 Paris, France
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 08:15:58 UTC