Arve Bersvendsen a écrit :
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)
JCD: I am unconfortable with such thinking that standards makers somehow
know better than implementors (and I am a standard maker).
This is a case where you would expose the problem in an informative part
of the spec and propose (not mandate) a working solution to implementers.
If it is not seen by the author, and not useful for interoperability,
there is no reason to mandate a solution.
Otherwise, you force extra technology on vendors, and that is a recipe
for failing standards.
Best regards
JC
PS: I agree with Thomas, but my tack is different.
--
JC Dufourd
Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group
Traitement du Signal et Images/Signal and Image Processing
Télécom ParisTech, 46 rue Barrault, 75 013 Paris, France
