RE: http and https in p:http-request

In that case, the name http-request may become misleading, though I guess
that's not a big deal if the HTTP and/or HTTPS schemes are required, so I
personally support this move. It would be especially useful if XProc was to
be implemented on the client side by browsers - imagine being able to test
if a scheme is available by running an arbitrary request on it and check for
that particular dynamic error. Oh, the possibilities...

BTW, with or without this change
====
It is a dynamic error (err:XC0021) if the scheme of the href attribute is
not "http" or "https".
====
Should probably be reworded to something like

====
It is a dynamic error (err:XC0021) if the scheme of the resolved URI of the
href attribute is not supported by the implementation.
====
Because the value of the "href" attribute can be relative, as specified
below that, in which case it won't have a scheme. Also, saying '"http" or
"https"' implies HTTPS is required. Why should it be?

-----Original Message-----
From: public-xml-processing-model-comments-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-xml-processing-model-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
Norman Walsh
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 5:05 PM
To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Subject: http and https in p:http-request

I really think it's a mistake to require the URI for http-request to be an
http: or https: URI. There are lots of (unfortunately non-standard) URI
schemes out there that are really just http with a different scheme name,
e.g., ical:

I don't see any reason why an implementation should be forbidden from
understanding other schemes.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

--
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Everything should be made as simple as
http://nwalsh.com/            | possible, but no simpler.

Received on Monday, 8 October 2007 14:44:31 UTC