on; Ian Hickson; Adam Barth; Edward O'Connor
Subject: Re: URL parsing in HTML5
Peter Saint-Andre , 2011-11-03 21:21 -0700:
If folks can agree on the foregoing points, then I think it would be
productive to work on proposed revisions to the current text (or at
least what I believe is the
[Forwarded because it got caught in the moderator's queue.]
Sorry, joining the conversation a bit late, can you explain more
specifically what you mean by URIs "leaking" in this context?
Thanks
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
I do agree that URIs leak, but that doesn't
5-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
-Original Message-
From: Michael[tm] Smith [mailto:m...@w3.org]
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 1:40 PM
To: Peter Saint-Andre
Cc: public-...@w3.org; public-html-comments@w3.org; Sam Ruby; Paul Cotton; Ian
Hickson; Adam Barth; Edward O'Connor
Subject: Re:
Sorry, joining the conversation a bit late, can you explain more
specifically what you mean by URIs "leaking" in this context?
Thanks
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> I do agree that URIs leak, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we can
> have the same processing requ
Peter Saint-Andre , 2011-11-03 21:21 -0700:
> If folks can agree on the foregoing points, then I think it would be
> productive to work on proposed revisions to the current text (or at
> least what I believe is the current text):
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/Overview.html#parsing-urls
>
> I wo
On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 09:25:15 -0700, Julian Reschke
wrote:
On 2011-11-04 16:58, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
details of URL processing are besides the point here. The point is that
URL processing should be uniform. What the exact details of URL
processing should be is indeed not completely figured
On 2011-11-04 16:58, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 08:50:07 -0700, Julian Reschke
wrote:
On 2011-11-04 16:34, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
The outcome you sketch will also result in all other W3C specifications
to be implemented by browsers (and even HTTP if it were to be defined in
On 2011-11-04 16:59, Elisabeth Robson wrote:
Sorry, joining the conversation a bit late, can you explain more
specifically what you mean by URIs "leaking" in this context?
...
With "leaking" we mean that once an identifier "works" inside an HTML
link, it's likely to surface in other protocol e
On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 08:50:07 -0700, Julian Reschke
wrote:
On 2011-11-04 16:34, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
The outcome you sketch will also result in all other W3C specifications
to be implemented by browsers (and even HTTP if it were to be defined in
a non-fiction manner) depend on HTML for its
On 2011-11-04 16:34, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:21:50 -0700, Peter Saint-Andre
wrote:
[...]
The outcome you sketch will also result in all other W3C specifications
to be implemented by browsers (and even HTTP if it were to be defined in
a non-fiction manner) depend on HTM
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:21:50 -0700, Peter Saint-Andre
wrote:
[...]
The outcome you sketch will also result in all other W3C specifications to
be implemented by browsers (and even HTTP if it were to be defined in a
non-fiction manner) depend on HTML for its definition of URL processing.
Hi Martin, thank you for your comments. I have time for only a quick
reply at the moment.
On 11/3/11 10:23 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> Hello Peter, others,
>
> On 2011/11/04 13:21, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> After chatting during TPAC 2011 with Addison, Larry, Richard, Ian, Mike,
>> Ted, Juli
Hello Peter, others,
On 2011/11/04 13:21, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
After chatting during TPAC 2011 with Addison, Larry, Richard, Ian, Mike,
Ted, Julian (etc.), I'd like to share some thoughts about a possible
compromise / resolution regarding Issue 56 in the HTML WG:
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/t
13 matches
Mail list logo
