W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > May 2011

Re: Non-hierarchical base URLs (was Re: draft-abarth-url-01 uploaded)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 17:57:42 -0700
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, public-iri@w3.org
Message-id: <24742089-7C47-4042-8008-23C73B163AA8@apple.com>
To: Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com>

On May 2, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Adam Barth wrote:

> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Authors have been using plain old ASCII references to URIs for
>> longer than the Web has been documented.  We expect them to
>> still work.  Likewise for references that are in the document
>> encoding but only use the subset of characters that are found
>> in ASCII.  URIs are defined in terms of characters, not octets,
>> so the transcoding I am referring to is the removal of whitespace,
>> pct-encoding of non-unreserved characters, etc.  A reference that
>> is already in URI form does not need to be transcoded.
> 
> You're missing the constraint that browser vendors aren't going to
> change their implementations to align with this dream.  Our choice is
> between having the specification reflect that reality or having the
> spec tell a lie.

Are there specific cases where browser URL resolution for an all-ASCII string that matches the valid URI grammar does not match what the RFC says? (There may be some, but I don't specifically know of any).

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2011 00:58:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 April 2012 19:52:01 GMT