W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > September 2009

Re: Proposed Charter and Agenda for IRI BOF at IETF 76

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:25:51 +1000
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "PUBLIC-IRI@W3.ORG" <PUBLIC-IRI@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4B5343E6-8E0D-4573-B450-2C2AAEBEBFE3@mnot.net>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>

On 27/09/2009, at 10:19 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>
>>> Note: it's not clear to me why HTTPbis would want to reference  
>>> lenient processing rules for URIs/IRIs. Are HTTP servers and  
>>> proxies not strict in what they accept?
>>
>> It's been discussed for the Location header. No decision as of yet,  
>> though.
>>
>> If something like Location (i.e., something that needs a URI, not  
>> an IRI, as output) needs this algorithm, including this in the IRI  
>> spec is going to make things more complex.
>
> It seems like putting these rules in the HTML5 spec would make  
> things even harder than that for the Location header, since it would  
> create a dependency inversion. So perhaps you don't entirely agree  
> with Roy after all?


Stranger things have happened.

For the benefit of those who haven't heard me droning on about it  
before, I believe that what HTML5 should be doing is defining:

   - a syntax specification for HTML5
   - a bits -> URI/IRI spec
   - various other specs as needed
   - a "browser profile" that pulls all of these various  
specifications together, along with refs to HTTP, URI, etc. as  
appropriate

In this fashion, the individual functions will be more independent,  
and thus more easily referenced by other, non-web-browser applications  
that might need them. Furthermore, they can evolve more independently,  
as can the browser profile.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 27 September 2009 00:26:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 April 2012 19:51:55 GMT