Re: The 'javascript' scheme

Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

> As I said, I don't think there is consensus about the status
> of the scheme as you describe it above.

Okay, we'll see what happens in and after a future Last Call.

> These definitions can be found in section 2 and 3 of the draft.
> They imply which characters are allowed, which characters have
> to be escaped, and how to construct the resource identifier for
> any given source text.

Obviously I don't understand it, and don't know how to construct
a javascript: URI from a given JS source, or how to implement it.

> If it is possible to provide a complete ABNF, it would span
> several dozens of pages.

As far as the URI scheme is concerned I'd expect a few lines,
addressing interesting cases for URI consumers and producers,
with some examples.
> I don't want to fill out the template *at all* and I've explained
> why.

It's only a SHOULD, if you have good reasons to violate it it's
fine.  I didn't find convincing reasons, but of course that's
something between you, the URI reviewer, and IANA.


Received on Sunday, 5 November 2006 17:40:30 UTC