On 27 May 2009, at 09:34, Arve Bersvendsen wrote:
The main issue here, I think, is one of being proactive on this
front. Given that absolute URIs are required for resolution, and
that UA vendors will, unless specified, have to pick a URI scheme of
their own, the situation may well arise where they have specified
something that would either be insecure (eg. file:), incompatible
( again, file:) or inappropriate (all schemes that fail to make
query strings and fragment identifiers useful)
Umh...
1. There is (again) no reason why the base URI that is chosen to
absolutize relative URI references needs to be the same URI that is
used to construct the origin. The argument that the URI scheme used
to absolutize is somehow "too insecure" depends on a specific design
decision that can go either way; in that context, I'm still waiting
for your answer to this note:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0603.html
See also Adam Barth's note here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009AprJun/0608.html
2. Where does the requirement for query strings suddenly come from? I
can't find it in the current editor's draft, and (beyond a side
discussion with timeless) don't recall conversation about it.
