W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > September 2010

Re: Progress on URL spec

From: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 13:17:24 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=-6-qHoNqjpUZ82hnt+PqmDh9gPHs+AdtuQ07B@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: public-iri@w3.org, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Thanks for your feedback.  I've added an "open issues" section at the
top of the document to record this issue.  At the moment, my plan is
to continue specifying how browsers behave, but we'll likely need to
compare that to RFC 3986 at some point.  Here's the current list of
differences I've seen on this list:

    http:///example.com/
    http://example.com;

If there are other cases you'd like to be sure I'll consider, please
let me know and I'll add them to the list.

Thanks,
Adam


On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
> * Adam Barth wrote:
>>Rather, I'd say that there's an interoperability problem to solve,
>>which is the motivation for this work.  Now, how to resolve the
>>difference in behavior is an interesting question.  What matters in
>>resolving this question, at least to browser vendors, is what existing
>>content on the web expects browsers to do.  That's a question we can
>>answer with data, not with opinion.  Do you have data to support which
>>behavior, if implemented by a browser, would result in greater
>>compatibility with existing web content?
>
> You are welcome to contribute data to justify why Microsoft should make
> Internet Explorer less standards-compliant and more inconsistent with
> other resource identifier parsers, including their own, like the one in
> the .NET framework, in an effort to improve compatibility with invalid
> content that only "works" in "Firefox, Chrome, and Safari" due to bugs.
>
>>Thanks.  If you have further examples of interesting input strings,
>>that's appreciated.  Blanket statements about "plausibility" are not
>>appreciated.
>
> The next thing would be that you define "http://example.org;" as equiva-
> lent to "http://example.org/;" (or rather as having a path of ";" which
> is even more silly) which is also a violation of RFC 3986 and not what
> Internet Explorer does. However, I cannot think of a more basic test
> than checking what the leading implementation does with respect to re-
> quirements that contradict the established standard, and we have already
> established that you did not perform these most basic tests.
> --
> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
> Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
> 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
>
Received on Sunday, 5 September 2010 20:18:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 April 2012 19:51:59 GMT