7973 2009-10-20 07:31:27 +0000 atom ID format 2010-10-04 13:57:42 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG pre-LC1 HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) unspecified PC Windows NT RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 julian.reschke ian ian julian.reschke mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 28549 0 julian.reschke 2009-10-20 07:31:27 +0000 "Otherwise Let id be a user-agent-defined undereferenceable yet globally unique absolute URL." Please make sure that is is clear that in particular it needs to be a valid absolute IRI as well (I *believe* that means "valid absolute URL", but it's hard to tell given the instability of the URL definition in the spec). 28750 1 ian 2009-10-21 11:27:11 +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: As opposed to what? 28780 2 julian.reschke 2009-10-21 15:08:56 +0000 I don't understand the answer. Right now the spec appears to allow invalid IRIs, which would create invalid Atom. Just state that the ID needs to be a valid IRI, in addition to what "HTML URL" means today. 28791 3 ian 2009-10-21 22:45:40 +0000 Invalid IRIs aren't ever allowed. They're invalid, by definition. I really don't understand your request. 28795 4 julian.reschke 2009-10-22 06:36:56 +0000 The spec distinguishes between "URL" and "valid URL". Why doesn't it say "valid URL" here? 28801 5 ian 2009-10-22 10:43:57 +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: Accepted Change Description: see diff given below Rationale: Unless I've made a mistake, the spec only used the term "valid URL" in the authoring conformance criteria, and then only because otherwise people like you argue that since the spec doesn't _say_ that you have to follow the other specs, you don't actually have to follow the other specs. In the interests of moving on with my life, I've added the redundant word "valid" here also. 28802 6 contributor 2009-10-22 10:46:03 +0000 Checked in as WHATWG revision r4270. Check-in comment: Yes, you _do_ have to follow other specs. http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=4269&to=4270