- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:12:17 +0200
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Cc: Max Froumentin <maxfro@opera.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote: > On Apr 23, 2009, at 12:36 , Marcos Caceres wrote: >>> >>> 3. [User Agents] "A user agent is an implementation" a bit vague. Perhaps >>> some of the text in the following note should be move here, to refine the >>> definition. >> >> I changed it to "A user agent is software that implements the >> application programming interfaces defined in this specification. A >> user agent must behave as described by this specification in order to >> claim conformance." > > I can't seem to dig it up right now, but IIRC there's something in the QA > documents that defines this which can be reused. > >>> 15. [The openURL() Method] Why couldn't this be generalised to open URI, >>> including mailto:, tel: and more? >>> >> Right: changed it to: >> >> "The openURL(url) method takes a valid URI as an argument. When >> invoked, the url should be opened with the appropriate protocol >> handler for the given URI. If there is no such protocol handler or >> urlis not a valid URI, then the user agent must act as if the method >> was not invoked.." > > Should we make it clear that the UA is allowed to ask the user for a handler > for a given scheme? > > Also note that a scheme doesn't necessarily uniquely map to a protocol, so > it should probably say "scheme handler". Right. I thought the same thing. I used "protocol handler" to be consistent with HTML5. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Friday, 24 April 2009 09:13:19 UTC