Re: URL, URI and the w3c

I was saying something more specific. AFAIK, an 3986-conforming URL will
generally be interpreted by browsers in the way its author intended.

I went through https://github.com/bagder/docs/blob/master/URL-interop.md
and let me revise that slightly: Any 3986-conforming URL that is plausible
for inclusion in an Internet-Draft will generally be interpreted by
browsers in the way its author intended.  I was having trouble finding
counter-examples but am prepared to believe that I'm missing something
obvious.

On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 2:33 PM Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Jun 2022, Tim Bray wrote:
>
> > I think it’s the case that browsers will accept any 3986-conforming URI
> > that is within its abilities, i.e. http:, https: (and maybe ftp, etc?).
>
> No, sorry, that's not true. The browsers accept and work with the WHATWG
> URL
> spec style of URLs and they are incompatible with 3986-conforming URIs
> (and
> 3987 IRIs) in numerous ways. As I've explained.
>
> --
>
>   / daniel.haxx.se