On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 1:01 AM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
Meanwhile, The IETF is actively working on a update:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-04
They are meeting F2F in a little over a week. URIs in general, and this
proposal in specific will be
On 11/1/14 5:29 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 1:01 AM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
Meanwhile, The IETF is actively working on a update:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-04
They are meeting F2F in a little over a week. URIs in
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On 11/1/14 5:29 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
It doesn't say that. (We should perhaps try to find some way to make
{scheme}:// syntax work for schemes that are not problematic (e.g.
javascript would be problematic).
On 11/1/14 7:56 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On 11/1/14 5:29 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
It doesn't say that. (We should perhaps try to find some way to make
{scheme}:// syntax work for schemes that are not problematic
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-04
I don't know how it should change. I just said that it doesn't say
that you cannot invent new hierarchical URIs (to use IETF terms). As
long as the IETF keeps
Hi WhatWG and friends!
I am currently making an AI to create HTML. In the process, I discovered a
logical problem: HTML is not clearly defined. Not as far as I know anyway.
A proper definition of HTML would include collections of sample HTML source
plus IMAGES of how they look rendered.
That,
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Stefan Reich
stefan.reich.maker.of@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi WhatWG and friends!
I am currently making an AI to create HTML. In the process, I discovered a
logical problem: HTML is not clearly defined. Not as far as I know anyway.
A proper definition of
On Sat, 01 Nov 2014 02:34:42 +0200, Ilya Grigorik igrigo...@gmail.com
wrote:
Before we get into the pros and cons of scoped, I think it's important
to
highlight that link in body is already a fact of life:
1) developers already put link tags in body, specs be damned.
2) all browsers support
On 11/01/2014 07:18 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
Thanks, Sam, for this great summary -- I hadn't taken notes, and was
hoping that someone who was (or who has a better memory than I) would
post something.
One minor tweak, at the end:
More specifically, if something along these lines I describe above
