- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:01:43 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2hckzrrug.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Vasil Rangelov <boen.robot@gmail.com> was heard to say:
| In that case, the name http-request may become misleading,
I suppose. We could make it p:web-request or something, I suppose.
| though I guess
| that's not a big deal if the HTTP and/or HTTPS schemes are required, so I
| personally support this move.
You support allowing ical: or you support requiring http:/https:? I can't
tell which you mean.
| 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?
I agree. Even if we keep the restriction, support for https: must be optional.
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | What is familiar is what we are used
http://nwalsh.com/ | to; and what we are used to is most
| difficult to 'Know'--that is, to see as
| a problem; that is, to see as strange,
| as distant, as 'outside us'.-- Nietzsche
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2007 14:01:53 UTC