Bugzilla – Bug 11380
2.6.1 - unhelpful and vague note - needs more specifics
Last modified: 2011-08-04 05:15:17 UTC
The note at the end of 2.6.1:
"The term "URL" in this specification is used in a manner distinct from the precise technical meaning it is given in RFC 3986. Readers familiar with that RFC will find it easier to read this specification if they pretend the term "URL" as used herein is really called something else altogether. This is a willful violation of RFC 3986. [RFC3986]"
is both vague and unhelpful.
In what ways is the meaning of URL in the HTML5 spec distinct from the meaning given in 3986? In what way is this usage a willful violation of 3986. Please add specifics, or at least one or more examples of distinctness.
This note is also confusing in the light of the earlier statement in 2.6.1:
"URL is a valid URL if at least one of the following conditions holds: The URL is a valid URI reference [RFC3986]..."
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:
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: The note was added at the request of some of the members of the working group who felt very strongly about the subject. I don't intend to touch it again. (I'd much rather simply remove all references to these RFCs, since they're rather out of touch with reality, but currently there's no better reference.)
mass-move component to LC1