- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:41:44 +0000 (UTC)
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > >> > >> Section 2.16 notes > >> > >> The form element's action attribute is no longer a required attribute. > >> Authors may omit it. When the attribute is absent, UAs must act as if > >> the action attribute was the empty string, which is a relative URI > >> pointing at the current document (or the specified base URI, if any). > > > >The intent is for it to go to http://example.org/y/. > > I'd suggest to include an example to this effect. Done. > >I don't really know what to change to satisfy your comment here. The value > >format for type="url" is defined (the IRI token); processing is defined in > >terms of whether values match the format. > > You could add a note that any string that matches the IRI token is valid > even if the string fails to satisfy other applicable requirements such > as scheme-specific syntax constraints, e.g., per RFC 2616, http://x:y@ > example.org/ is not allowed but would be valid for the purposes of the > specification. If that's desired. Done. > >> The document does not conform to http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/ (e.g., > >> content is not required to conform to charmod in order to conform to the > >> specification). > > > >Fixed. Well, that is fixed. I don't know if there are any other problems. > > http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/#sec-Checklist has a list of requirements, > it'd be a good idea to review the draft against it if you haven't done > so already. Just went through and checked for compliance; fixed the minor issues I found. No major issues found, I think I already did this once. > >> The draft is unclear about whether e.g. "application/xml" matches > >> "image/svg+xml". > > > >Yes. I'm not sure we want to define this at this time, at least not in > >this spec. What do you think? > > I think media ranges are quite useless for e.g. http://validator.w3.org > since it basically supports any XML document and text/html documents... Yes, it would not be useful for everyone. > It seems the draft considers accept="*/*" invalid yet implementations > must assume this value if the value is invalid. Fixed. > It also does not define whether parameters like ;charset=... are > allowed. It would be good to have a clear production rule here. Fixed. > >No, the intention is that extensions must not cause UAs to do things > >which directly contradict what the spec says. Like, it would be ok to > >include a new DOM attribute that returned the time it took the user to > >select the current value (say), but not ok to define a new control that > >would appear in the .elements array. > > I'd suggest to include such examples in the document. Done. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2005 05:41:44 UTC