- 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