W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sysapps@w3.org > May 2013

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

From: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 18:26:36 +0100
Message-ID: <518BDC4C.8070507@lamouri.fr>
To: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
CC: "Mandyam, Giridhar" <mandyam@quicinc.com>, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, "public-sysapps@w3.org" <public-sysapps@w3.org>, "wonsuk11.lee@samsung.com" <wonsuk11.lee@samsung.com>
I am glad to see that you guys reach an agreement :)

Dave, I think we are good to publish the FPWD for the APP URI scheme
specification. The following document should have been updated:
http://app-uri.sysapps.org/pub/WD_09May2013.html

Thanks,
--
Mounir

On 09/05/13 17:44, Mandyam, Giridhar wrote:
> 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 17:27:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 1 July 2021 16:04:43 UTC