[apps-discuss] 'about' URI scheme draft and AppsAWG
Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> Mon, 01 August 2011 17:07 UTC
Return-Path: <evnikita2@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F1CF11E80FF for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 10:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LXm073GdR-He for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 10:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B36B011E8077 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 10:07:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxe6 with SMTP id 6so5521435fxe.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 10:07:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RxHPbld5zmCVIgR1hHUKBieQ78+0F9DAaDTfoLF/ybE=; b=u3mLm/l4xd+/28WSRdKN/mp8Ac9f1NRLquTaeCMfERT/W8JPvwr3t0GnRJO8f/Nclu 7keSf61VdMdGN/pw/R4zh2XzSU3hhnFM6nN+DRwK+j+oDwoOEXXTqax2V1cvDjPQ+GnO Hu9qQh/oC+odj1r6srBnp4Xr7qmbLUbXcEMVs=
Received: by 10.223.32.19 with SMTP id a19mr6670691fad.22.1312218430868; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 10:07:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d5sm544922fak.40.2011.08.01.10.07.09 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 01 Aug 2011 10:07:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E36DD64.2040602@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 20:07:48 +0300
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Apps-discuss list <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [apps-discuss] 'about' URI scheme draft and AppsAWG
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:07:05 -0000
Dear all, Today AppsAWG chairs announced that based on discussions on IETF meeting the EG is going to adopt draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme as WG item. Previously I volunteered to become an additional author, and both current authors, AD and doc. shepherd agreed on this. I suppose the authors didn't change their mind, and WG won't object to this. Now I'd like to present my view on what basic changes should be made prior to publishing the draft as AppsAWG document. First, the semantics should be amended as follows. I propose to mention that (1) broadly speaking, the meaning if the particular 'about' URI is denoted by the token in its <hier-part>, but (2) any application which handles the URI is free to resolve it to any resource; ie. handle it solely (well, almost solely; see bullet 3) internally. (3) A special range of 'about' URI tokens is defined to be "special-purpose", (3a) they are to be registered with IANA and (3b) must be used only and only for the defined reason. The corresponding IANA registry (see below) should be lightweight enough, as the "special-purpose token" should be used as the last resort only. (I understand that many won't agree with me, but) the Specification Required may be sufficient for such purpose. FCFS isn't appropriate because the MUST requirement is a very string regulation and some formal review is necessary; the discussion mailing list is also an option, but Spec. Required alone should also be OK (see justification below). Next, (4) the registration of the token should have clear regulations regarding the use of the corresponding 'about' URI, eg. "The 'about' URI with "legacy-compat" token MUST only be used in HTML <more specifically, etc.>". For the purpose of the documentation clarity, the Specification Required policy is an ideal way, but for the purpose of being lightweight Expert Review is more appropriate. I'll let the WG to decide, but please consider that Specification Required is what I *personally* prefer. (5) the categorization regarding resolvable/unresolvable should be dropped. I suppose (2) fully covers handling of those URIs which can be defined to be "unresolvable" (I mean the situation when an app resolves eg. <about:legacy-compat> to the web page saying this URI may not be resolved elsewhere). (6) The categorization regarding reserved/unreserved should be dropped in favor of (3). (7) Encoding considerations are defined to be application-specific; (7a) 'about' IRIs should be disallowed. (8) The requirement for mandatory support of "about:blank" is unreasonable and should be dropped. I suppose AppsAWG participants will express their opinion with respect to these issues prior to publishing AppsAWG draft. Thanks, Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- [apps-discuss] 'about' URI scheme draft and AppsA… Mykyta Yevstifeyev
- Re: [apps-discuss] 'about' URI scheme draft and A… Barry Leiba
- Re: [apps-discuss] 'about' URI scheme draft and A… Mykyta Yevstifeyev