13721 2011-08-10 02:58:23 +0000 don't include colon in examples of scheme names 2011-09-25 09:24:11 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG LC1 HTML5 spec unspecified PC All RESOLVED WONTFIX TrackerIssue P4 trivial --- 12986 1 mike ian evnikita2 ian julian.reschke mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 54554 0 mike 2011-08-10 02:58:23 +0000 > 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. [split out from bug 12986] 57288 1 ian 2011-09-23 23:20:52 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: People understand it better if they see the colon. 57300 2 evnikita2 2011-09-24 04:15:06 +0000 I'll reopen the bug now. Whereas people understand better, this is not correct in terms of RFC 3986. It specifies a ":" character as a delimiter, and everything before it in the URI is a scheme name. So it is incorrect to point to eg. 'http:' scheme because it literally leads to URI like "http:://smth.org/". Moreover, as HTML spec is available in HTML, and you actively use highlighting there, I doubt there will be any problems with understanding. Please reconsider this proposal. 57313 3 ian 2011-09-25 02:00:55 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: Pedantic correctness is not as importance as clarity. 57314 4 julian.reschke 2011-09-25 09:24:11 +0000 See <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/178>.