RE: CfC: publish FPWD of "app: URI scheme"; deadline April 26th

OK - this is fine.  Please make your proposed text change and ship it.

Thanks for all of your work on this spec.

-Giri

-----Original Message-----
From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:w3c@marcosc.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 9:42 AM
To: Mandyam, Giridhar
Cc: Mounir Lamouri; public-sysapps@w3.org; wonsuk11.lee@samsung.com; Dave Raggett
Subject: Re: CfC: publish FPWD of "app: URI scheme"; deadline April 26th



On Thursday, May 9, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Mandyam, Giridhar wrote:

> Mounir, Marcos,
> I appreciate all the efforts that Marcos has gone through, in particular sorting through the detailed feedback I provided on the doc. I agree we need to move this forward and get this to FPWD soon.
> 
> I believe we are at an impasse on one issue prior to releasing to FPWD: how to handle Section 6.4. My latest proposal is that the text be marked as non-normative (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2013Apr/0230.html). I don't believe Marcos is in agreement. So I'll propose the following change:
> 
> Change
> 
> " To dereference a app: URI to a file in a app package a user agent MUST apply the rules for dereferencing an app: URI. "
> 
> to
> 
> " To dereference a app: URI to a file in a app package a user agent SHOULD apply the rules for dereferencing an app: URI. ", where SHOULD is as per RFC 2119.
> 

I think it would be better to say:

Note: A user agent can deference a URI scheme using other means/technologies (e.g., a proxy), but the end result needs to be indistinguishable from the result that would be obtained by following the specification. 

Changing the conformance requirements to a SHOULD would just confuse implementers. All that matters is that you get back the data in a consistent and predictable manner.

Received on Thursday, 9 May 2013 16:44:35 UTC