- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 15:46:18 +0200
- To: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
- Cc: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Jul 26, 2009, at 23:18 , Marcin Hanclik wrote: > The below 1. could be correct if assumed host is "beefdead". > I am not sure, however, whether in the widget-URI rule, we use the > authority rule from RFC3986, because it is meant to be opaque as > specified here: > http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-uri/#the-widget-uri-scheme The idea was for the example to show an authority identifier (because it is allowed). The idea is that it comes from the UA, and is opaque (even though it has a string representation that matches the authority production). I've added a comment to indicate that that is the intent. Thanks! -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2009 13:47:22 UTC