On May 27, 2009, at 10:15 , Jean-Claude Dufourd wrote:
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).
As it happens, Arve is an implementer.
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.
I don't see how that would work — how does an optional specification
help interoperability.
If it is not seen by the author
But, as has been explained before, it is.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
