Re: [Uri-review] Updated 'javascript' scheme draft

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Wed, 15 September 2010 14:13 UTC

Message-ID: <4C90D4A5.7090305@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:13:57 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100825 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
References: <7vi196ttkeuol4h2k7oiuaeo759tggt4pl@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
In-Reply-To: <7vi196ttkeuol4h2k7oiuaeo759tggt4pl@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: uri-review@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] Updated 'javascript' scheme draft
Precedence: list

On 15.09.2010 15:52, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
>    http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hoehrmann-javascript-scheme-02.txt is an
> updated draft for the registration of the "javascript" scheme. I do not
> think I've received any feedback on it since I published the previous
> version a year ago. Earlier feedback [1] [2] [3] should be accounted for
> except some requests for elaboration on how the scheme is different or
> wrong or dangerous or something along those lines. I had no inspiration
> concerning that in the past year, but I am happy to consider proposals
> with spec-ready text on that. Otherwise I intend to propose publication
> of the document as Informational RFC pretty much as it is.
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2006Nov/thread.html
> [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review/current/thrd13.html
> [3] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review/current/thrd14.html
>
> regards,

Hi Björn,

thanks for the work on this.

One major comment I have is that it seems that you define a IRI scheme. 
My understanding was that the current way to do this is that you define 
a URI scheme, and then just let RFC 3987 apply to it, resulting in an 
IRI scheme.

That being said, a few nits...:

>    The first operation, content retrieval, defines which script code a
>    given 'javascript' resource identifier represents.  This operation is
>    fully defined in this document and some applications might take
>    advantage of only this operation.

Maybe "content retrieval" is misleading -- after all, nothing is being 
retrieved. Maybe "content identification" or "script code identification"?

>    A resource identifier conforms to this specification if and only if
>    it is a valid IRI and application of the content retrieval operation
>    yields a valid application/javascript entity without generating any
>    error.  Use of a byte order mark is discouraged; percent-encoding of
>    "/" (U+002F SOLIDUS) characters is encouraged.

This implies that most javascript URIs are invalid due to the use of SP 
characters. There's nothing we can do about it, but maybe it should be 
mentioned.

Q: will implementations treat %20 properly?

>       3.  If the sequence starts with the sequence 0xEF 0xBB 0xBF (the
>           UTF-8 signature, or byte order mark), discard this sequence.

"this sequence" is ambiguous here :-)

>    For instance, a 'javascript' resource identifier might be embedded in
>    a HTML document and depened on properties of the document.  A typical

"depend"

>    The in-context evalutation operation necessitates extreme caution in

"evaluation"

Best regards, Julian

[Uri-review] Updated 'javascript' scheme draft Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: [Uri-review] Updated 'javascript' scheme draft Julian Reschke
Re: [Uri-review] Updated 'javascript' scheme draft Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: [Uri-review] Updated 'javascript' scheme draft Julian Reschke
Re: [Uri-review] Updated 'javascript' scheme draft Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: [Uri-review] Updated 'javascript' scheme draft Julian Reschke
Re: [Uri-review] Updated 'javascript' scheme draft Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: [Uri-review] Updated 'javascript' scheme draft Julian Reschke
Re: [Uri-review] Updated 'javascript' scheme draft Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: [Uri-review] Updated 'javascript' scheme draft Julian Reschke
Re: [Uri-review] Updated 'javascript' scheme draft Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: [Uri-review] Updated 'javascript' scheme draft Julian Reschke
Re: [Uri-review] Updated 'javascript' scheme draft Bjoern Hoehrmann
Re: [Uri-review] Updated 'javascript' scheme draft Julian Reschke
Re: [Uri-review] Updated 'javascript' scheme draft Martin J. Dürst