On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Larry Masinter wrote: > > I think it would be "normative overlap" to have an IRI document say one > thing and another document describe something else. This would be > confusing and disruptive. I agree. Dan's document, and before it, the section in HTML5, only exist because when I e-mailed the uri@w3.org list, it was made clear that there was no interest in making a new version of the URI RFC that defined error handling. If we can't update the URI spec, then another spec is the only alternative I can see. Note though that Dan's document, and before it, the section in HTML5, don't actually contradict the URI and IRI specs; they just define extra processing that is applied before and after applying the URI rules. I would much rather we update the URI spec to combine the URI rules, the IRI rules, and the rules from Dan's document so that we have a single spec that both defines the allowed syntax, and the processing for all input strings, in a manner that is compatible with today's tools (networking libraries, command-line tools, browsers, e-mail clients, etc). Doing this should be relatively simple (there's no design work and no decisions to make, it's all a matter of integrating the existing rules and checking that they match existing software and fixing them where they don't). We just need a volunteer to edit the spec (Dan?), and agreement that this is the right thing to do. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'Received on Sunday, 29 March 2009 07:42:08 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:40:29 GMT