W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: aftermath on Bug 8953 URL decomp. IDL attributes when parsing fails

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:54:32 +0000 (UTC)
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1002182148260.1729@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 18.02.2010 19:16, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Feb 2010, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > > 
> > > Anyway, can we get back to the discussion *why* there is this
> > > restriction to the syntax (considering it's not implemented, and all
> > > kinds of other garbage are allowed)?
> > 
> > Isn't that now out of scope for this working group? I thought the parsing
> > of URLs was now an IRI matter.
> For now it's not, until you change the spec's reference.

So if I write a draft that redefines HTTP, and then make HTML refer to 
that draft instead of the HTTP spec, you'd argue that HTTP is in scope for 
this group?

> That being said -- what do you *want* IRIbis to define here? As the UAs 
> do not implement what you specified I'm wondering what the rational for 
> this special case could be.

So long as it's defined and compatible with legacy content, I don't really 
care what the spec says. In general I would encourage making things as 
simple as possible, but I don't know what that means in this case.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 18 February 2010 21:55:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:02 GMT