W3C

Site Navigation

Nearby

Results of Questionnaire ISSUE-189: Should HTML5 assign a special meaning to the prefix "web+"? - Straw Poll for Objections

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody. In addition, answers are sent to the following email addresses: pcotton@microsoft.com, rubys@intertwingly.net, mjs@apple.com, mike@w3.org

This questionnaire was open from 2012-07-06 to 2012-07-19.

2 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Objections to the Change Proposal to NOT assign a special meaning to the prefix "web+".
  2. Objections to the Change Proposal to disambiguate the "web+" prefix definition from IANA registrations.

1. Objections to the Change Proposal to NOT assign a special meaning to the prefix "web+".

We have a Change Proposal that proposes to NOT assign a special meaning to the prefix "web+". If you have strong objections to adopting this Change Proposal, please state your objections below.

Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it.

Details

Responder Objections to the Change Proposal to NOT assign a special meaning to the prefix "web+".
Leonard Rosenthol
Julian Reschke

2. Objections to the Change Proposal to disambiguate the "web+" prefix definition from IANA registrations.

We have a Change Proposal that proposes to disambiguate the "web+" prefix definition from IANA registrations. If you have strong objections to adopting this Change Proposal, please state your objections below.

Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it.

Details

Responder Objections to the Change Proposal to disambiguate the "web+" prefix definition from IANA registrations.
Leonard Rosenthol IANA and the IETF have always been and should continue to be the official arbiter for URL definitions, be it prefixes, or domain identifiers. Allowing the HTML5 committee to create it's own prefix that does NOT comply with the existing IETF standards will set a VERY BAD precedent for the industry and the future.

If HTML5 wishes to use this prefix, then simply register it with IANA.
Julian Reschke Feedback on <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Eoconnor/ISSUE-189>

This CP fixes the problem of the specification trying to register a URI scheme prefix, when there is no such thing in the IANA URI registration procedure.

It does not address the problem of overloading the naming of URI schemes with semantics. Doing this in general is problematic as it doesn't scale; once a prefix is defined this extension point is essentially taken. This should not be done lightly, and should be coordinated with the standards body maintaining URI names; the IETF.

Finally an editorial comment: the CP proposes that URI scheme registrations cite a non-W3C specification with the definition of the "web+" semantics. It's unclear why this, if the CP was approved, wouldn't recommend citing the W3C HTML specification.

Procedural feedback:

W3C and IETF have discussed this topic in the liason conference call on July, 3, see <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/2012Jul/0000.html>, but there was not sufficient time to conclude the discussion. I believe the plan is to proceed with this during the Vancouver IETF meeting in two weeks from now, and it seems it would be the right thing to wait for the outcome of that discussion.

More details on responses

  • Leonard Rosenthol: last responded on 16, July 2012 at 09:19 (UTC)
  • Julian Reschke: last responded on 18, July 2012 at 19:15 (UTC)

Everybody has responded to this questionnaire.

Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders

WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire

Report issues on GitHub project w3c/wbs-design or by mail to sysreq.