- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:14:30 +0200
- To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>
- CC: Chris Weber <chris@lookout.net>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-iri@w3.org
On 2011-06-20 11:02, Adam Barth wrote: > ... > I can just repeat what I've said before. This behavior needs to be > specced. We can either spec it here or somewhere else. Given that > the behavior is implemented in the URL processing code (and not the > DOM), the natural place to spec it is here (and not in the DOM specs). > ... Well, the WG should make a conscious decision here. I can see that it may make sense to define a canonical form. In that case we need to decide whether it would be scheme-agnostic (see <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3986.html#rfc.section.6.2.2>), or whether it needs to go any further. In the latter case we would enter the area of scheme-specific rules, which I believe the generic URI/IRI spec should not do. Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 20 June 2011 09:15:07 UTC