Hi Barry, On 6/17/11 6:01 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > Yes... I'm actually very confused about the point of this document. > It's documenting a URI scheme that's used ONLY internally, and, > therefore, has no interoperability requirements.
Indeed. That's a good argument to stop right there. > As best I can tell, > the issue here is to let browser makers know what other browsers do, > so that maybe new browsers will decide to do the same things. That's > fine, and that helps users have a consistent experience across > browsers. But it strikes me as Informational, not Standards Track. > MUSTs and MUST NOTs seem completely out of place here, to me. It seems to me we could simply inform IANA that about: is reserved for internal use by a browser, and not to be assigned for other purposes, and not to be exchanged between hosts. Do we really need an RFC to do that? Eliot _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
