This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 12986 - Last Call comments to HTML5
Summary: Last Call comments to HTML5
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 13724
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: LC1 HTML5 spec (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other All
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: contributor
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
Depends on: 13719 13720 13721 13722 13723 13724
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2011-06-18 08:06 UTC by HTML WG bugbot
Modified: 2011-08-10 03:05 UTC (History)
7 users (show)

See Also:


Description HTML WG bugbot 2011-06-18 08:06:45 UTC
public-html-comments posting from: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <>


Mark Nottingham, who is IETF/W3C liaison, notified folks at the IETF 
that HTML WG started LC on HTML5 specifications.  I'd like to provide 
some comments with regard to URIs in the HTML5 specification.  (This 
message was initially sent to list).  Some 
additions are in-line.

> Hello,
> I see the proposed HTML5 specification has the following text (Section 
> 2.6.1):
>> This specification defines the URL |about:legacy-compat| as a 
>> reserved, though unresolvable, |about:| URI, for use in DOCTYPE 
>> <>s in HTML 
>> documents <> 
>> when needed for compatibility with XML tools. [ABOUT] 
>> <>
>> This specification defines the URL |about:srcdoc| as a reserved, 
>> though unresolvable, |about:| URI, that is used as the document's 
>> address 
>> <> 
>> of |iframe| |srcdoc| documents 
>> <>. 
>> [ABOUT] <>
> Moreover, the [ABOUT] references the well-known 
> draft-holsten-about-uri-scheme which we have had a lot of discussions 
> on.  Considering that there isn't a strong decision on this draft, I'd 
> recommend W3C not to include this text in the proposed document.  
> Mentioning that "about:legacy-compat" is to be used for a specific 
> purpose in Section 8.1.1 (the same is with "about:srcdoc") seems fine 
> to me.
Currently, this Internet-Draft is being actively discussed at IETF; we 
haven't reached some stable consensus with regard to it.  See archives 
at for 
these discussions.
> Probably the same is with 'javascript' URIs (Section 6.1.5).  It 
> references [JSURL], the draft-hoehrmann-javascript-scheme, which is 
> now expired.  It includes-by-reference the source code retrieval 
> operation for these URIs 
> (  
> I propose not to include it by reference but rather describe in the 
> specification itself.  The algorithm contains only 4 steps so it 
> shouldn't be a problem.
> 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 
>> <> 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.
> With regard to references.  The [MAILTO] references the document which 
> was obsoleted by RFC 6068.  [COOKIES] has become RFC 6265 (the link 
> should be fixed).  References to Internet-Drafts should be given as 
> "Work in Progress" per RFC 2026.
> Probably Section 2.6, as well as some other URI-related stuff, can be 
> interested for some people on list so I'll forward the LC 
> announcement there to encourage their feedback.
I've already sent a note to this list.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev
> All the best,
> Mykyta Yevstifeyev
> 17.06.2011 23:45, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> [ with my IETF/W3C Liaison hat on ]
>> The W3C has announced a Last Call on the HTML5 specification; see:
>> The IETF has been encouraged to provide feedback, especially regarding HTML's use of and interface with IETF technologies.
>> For background on Last Call in their process, see:
>> and the specification itself:
>> paying special attention to the 'status of this document' section for information about the Last Call and how to provide feedback.
>> See also their LC FAQ:
>> Cheers,
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham
>> _______________________________________________
>> apps-discuss mailing list
Comment 1 Michael[tm] Smith 2011-08-04 05:02:32 UTC
mass-moved component to LC1
Comment 2 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2011-08-10 01:27:59 UTC
Could someone split this into one issue per bug?
Comment 3 Michael[tm] Smith 2011-08-10 03:05:29 UTC
split out into bug 13719, bug 13720, bug 13721, bug 13722 , bug 13723, bug 13724

Mykyta, I recommend you add yourself to the Cc list for those bugs. I'm closing this one.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 13724 ***