Subject: [apps-discuss] Last Call for HTML5 in the W3C

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:45:09 -0700

[ with my IETF/W3C Liaison hat on ]

The W3C has announced a Last Call on the HTML5 specification; see:
 http://www.w3.org/2011/02/htmlwg-pr.html

The IETF has been encouraged to provide feedback, especially regarding HTML's use of and interface with IETF technologies.

For background on Last Call in their process, see:
 http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#last-call

and the specification itself:
 http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/
paying special attention to the 'status of this document' section for information about the Last Call and how to provide feedback.

See also their LC FAQ:
 http://www.w3.org/2011/05/html5lc-faq.html

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Dzonatas Sol <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:10:13 -0700

That is the API perspective. That would also make the ABI perspective 
regard HTTP status codes 200, 201, 202, and 203 as standard input, 
output, error, and one bit "control flow" where TLS does not exist in 
SI/SO modes.

Note that "network order" considers top three bits, yet that is not 
clear about top three of each byte or the thee most significant bits of 
the last byte. That standard creates this kind of mask:
100000001000000011111000

Can we just default something like the OAuth MAC header to that code to 
signify that mask is known? Then, check /.well-known/ for that bitstream?

We can then determine the queue direction.

On 06/17/2011 01:45 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>
>    

-- 
--- http://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering
Ag-Biotech, Virtual Reality, Consultant

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 07:45:12 +0300

Hello,

I see the proposed HTML5 specification has the following text (Section 
2.6.1):

> This specification defines the URL |about:legacy-compat| as a 
> reserved, though unresolvable, |about:| URI, for use in DOCTYPE 
> <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#syntax-doctype>s in HTML 
> documents <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#html-documents> 
> when needed for compatibility with XML tools. [ABOUT] 
> <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#refsABOUT>
>
> This specification defines the URL |about:srcdoc| as a reserved, 
> though unresolvable, |about:| URI, that is used as the document's 
> address 
> <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-document-s-address> of 
> |iframe| |srcdoc| documents 
> <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#an-iframe-srcdoc-document>. [ABOUT] 
> <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#refsABOUT>
>
Moreover, the [ABOUT] references the well-known 
draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme which we have had a lot of discussions 
on.  Considering that there isn't a strong decision on this draft, I'd 
recommend W3C not to include this text in the proposed document.  
Mentioning that "about:legacy-compat" is to be used for a specific 
purpose in Section 8.1.1 (the same is with "about:srcdoc") seems fine to me.

Probably the same is with 'javascript' URIs (Section 6.1.5).  It 
references [JSURL], the draft-hoehrmann-javascript-scheme, which is now 
expired.  It includes-by-reference the source code retrieval operation 
for these URIs 
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoehrmann-javascript-scheme-03#section-3.1).  
I propose not to include it by reference but rather describe in the 
specification itself.  The algorithm contains only 4 steps so it 
shouldn't be a problem.

An editorial comment.  I see the document using such terms as "mailto: 
URL", "data: URL", "javascript: URL" etc.  An example is (Section 2.1.1):

> The term |data:| URL refers to URLs 
> <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#url> that use the |data:| 
> scheme.
Considering the string before "URL" identifies the scheme, I'd recommend 
not to include ":" (colon) their, since this character isn't a part of 
the scheme name (but rather a delimiter).  Having "scheme URL" or " 
'scheme' URL " (I personally prefer the last) is OK.

With regard to references.  The [MAILTO] references the document which 
was obsoleted by RFC 6068.  [COOKIES] has become RFC 6265 (the link 
should be fixed).  References to Internet-Drafts should be given as 
"Work in Progress" per RFC 2026.

Probably Section 2.6, as well as some other URI-related stuff, can be 
interested for some people on [email-masked] list so I'll forward the LC 
announcement there to encourage their feedback.

All the best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 11:52:32 -0700

Mykyta,

Just to make sure it's clear -- while it's fine to discuss things here to see if other IETFers agree, if you want your feedback to be noticed by the HTML WG, you'll need to submit it to them using the procedures they outline in the document. 

I've already forwarded the announcement to the IRI list, FWIW.

Cheers,

On 17/06/2011, at 9:45 PM, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I see the proposed HTML5 specification has the following text (Section 2.6.1):
> 
>> This specification defines the URL about:legacy-compat as a reserved, though unresolvable, about: URI, for use in DOCTYPEs in HTML documents when needed for compatibility with XML tools. [ABOUT]
>> 
>> This specification defines the URL about:srcdoc as a reserved, though unresolvable, about: URI, that is used as the document's address of iframe srcdoc documents. [ABOUT]
>> 
> Moreover, the [ABOUT] references the well-known draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme which we have had a lot of discussions on.  Considering that there isn't a strong decision on this draft, I'd recommend W3C not to include this text in the proposed document.  Mentioning that "about:legacy-compat" is to be used for a specific purpose in Section 8.1.1 (the same is with "about:srcdoc") seems fine to me.
> 
> Probably the same is with 'javascript' URIs (Section 6.1.5).  It references [JSURL], the draft-hoehrmann-javascript-scheme, which is now expired.  It includes-by-reference the source code retrieval operation for these URIs (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoehrmann-javascript-scheme-03#section-3.1).  I propose not to include it by reference but rather describe in the specification itself.  The algorithm contains only 4 steps so it shouldn't be a problem.
> 
> An editorial comment.  I see the document using such terms as "mailto: URL", "data: URL", "javascript: URL" etc.  An example is (Section 2.1.1):
> 
>> The term data: URL refers to URLs that use the data: scheme.
> Considering the string before "URL" identifies the scheme, I'd recommend not to include ":" (colon) their, since this character isn't a part of the scheme name (but rather a delimiter).  Having "scheme URL" or " 'scheme' URL " (I personally prefer the last) is OK.
> 
> With regard to references.  The [MAILTO] references the document which was obsoleted by RFC 6068.  [COOKIES] has become RFC 6265 (the link should be fixed).  References to Internet-Drafts should be given as "Work in Progress" per RFC 2026.
> 
> Probably Section 2.6, as well as some other URI-related stuff, can be interested for some people on [email-masked] list so I'll forward the LC announcement there to encourage their feedback.
> 
> All the best,
> Mykyta Yevstifeyev 
>

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 07:06:25 +0300

> Just to make sure it's clear -- while it's fine to discuss things here to see if other IETFers agree, if you want your feedback to be noticed by the HTML WG, you'll need to submit it to them using…
Mark,

I've already copied the message to [email-masked]: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-comments/2011Jun/0034.html.  
The appropriate database entry was already created: 
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12986; it was forwarded to 
[email-masked] list: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0250.html.

Mykyta

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 22:16:45 +0200

> I see the proposed HTML5 specification has the following

| This specification defines the URL about:legacy-compat as
| a reserved, though unresolvable, about: URI, for use in
| DOCTYPEs in HTML documents when needed
| for compatibility with XML tools. [ABOUT]

Thanks for that note, I vaguely recalled this oddity when I
tried to send my about: draft comments to this list, but
forgot to mention it.

I think this pseudo-URL doesn't do anything apart from
filling a slot where a syntactically valid URL is expected.

If that's the case I wonder why they don't pick about:blank
for this purpose.  I'm not hot about it -- I anyway dislike
the concepts of no HTML5 DTD and no proper HTML5
DOCTYPE version.

> This specification defines the URL about:srcdoc as a
> reserved, though unresolvable, about: URI, that is
> used as the document's address of iframe srcdoc
> documents. [ABOUT]

If that is a good idea (I didn't know it and have no time
to check it today) independent of HTML5 it should be
added to the about: draft.

> draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme which we have had
> a lot of discussions on.

Well, it should.  The about: draft should be an RFC long
before HTML5 arrives at its "last last call" in 2012.  The
WhatWG HTML is no problem, it's a moving target and
can be updated whenever the WhatWG folks feel like it.

> Probably the same is with 'javascript' URIs (Section 6.1.5).
> It references [JSURL], the draft-hoehrmann-javascript-
> scheme, which is now expired.  It includes-by-reference
> the source code retrieval operation for these URIs

I recall an old version of this brave attempt to document
javascript: URLs, and various essential points were
unclear in the 2006 draft.  But now there's a newer draft
(expired in March 2011), maybe it's ready before HTML5.

> I propose not to include it by reference but rather
> describe in the specification itself.  The algorithm
> contains only 4 steps so it shouldn't be a problem.

If what you want is simple it should better be done in the
javascript:  URL draft.  And as long as the new draft says
"you really do not want to do this" at least once per page
and subsection I might even like it now. ;-)

> The [MAILTO] references the document which was
> obsoleted by RFC 6068.
[etc.]

Yes, but as Mark said that's not the business of the IETF
Apps list.  Hopefully the W3C HTML5 Last Call FAQ
meanwhile manages to identify which of the numerous
HTML drafts is the "first last call" version, e.g., giving an
immutable URL of this draft would be a good thing in the
FAQ.  And it should specify where interested users can
post comments (without preconditions above a working
mail address).

---

From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 07:12:31 +0300

19.06.2011 23:16, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> [ . . . ]
>> This specification defines the URLabout:srcdoc  as a
We discussed the idea to add these two about URIs in the draft and 
decided not to do this and leave reservation to the HTML5 itself.
> can be updated whenever the WhatWG folks feel like it.
We haven't currently reached a consensus whether to create or not the 
possibility to reserve the about URI tokens, as far as you know.  It's 
better for HTML5 to mention the above URIs as "used for a specific 
purpose" and later, if about URI draft progresses with the above 
possibility, they may be included by reference.
> (expired in March 2011), maybe it's ready before HTML5.
The draft is currently expired.  If Bjoern is ready to reopen work on 
it, then this shouldn't be a problem.
> javascript:  URL draft.
That draft isn't going to progress, as I see; see below.
>   And as long as the new draft says
Best,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev