Re: heads-up about "new" URLs section in HTML5 editor's draft

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:06:14 +0200, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote:
>> Somebody suggested "HTML URL" on uri@w3.org - I think that's a better
>> option because its makes the distinction more apparent.
> 
> Since I'd expect, e.g. XMLHttpRequest and other specifications to adopt 

I wouldn't expect that. Why hardwire IRI-incompatibilities into XHR when 
IE currently doesn't handle IRIs at all for XHR? Why not do the right 
thing at least here????

> ...

BR, Julian