Re: Agreement on IRI "processing spec" moving to W3C

On 11/23/2011 10:51 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> Hi, I failed to figure out what this is about, is it related to
> <URL:http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-weber-iri-guidelines>, to
> <URL:http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-masinter-iri-comparison>,
> or is it about something else not yet listed on the IRI WG page?

Hi Frank, Martin, it was announced at the beginning of the IETF 82 
meeting that the proposed  processing spec would be moved to the W3C as 
only little, if any, progress had been made on it within the IRI WG.  
It's original purpose was to describe IRI pre-processing, parsing, error 
handling, and scheme-specific rules - all based on an acceptable and 
demonstrable middle ground of what Web browsers implement today.  Adam 
Barth prepared a draft along these lines 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-abarth-url-01> as did Julian Reschke 
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reschke-ref-parsing-00> but we didn't 
quite converge or complete these efforts.

>
> For the "guidelines" and "comparisons" drafts I'd hope that they
> stay here (on this list).  IMHO the "guidelines" are interesting
> enough to merge them into 3987bis proper.
>
> BTW, looking in the guidelines I-D I saw that leading and trailing
> white space (defined as SP, HT, CR, or LF) is stripped.  Within
> the result only SP is considered as "substring split opportunity",
> if I understood it correctly.  Is that as it should be?  Why not
> stick to one concept of white space SP, HT, CR, or LF everywhere?

There happen to be one, maybe two, attributes in HTML which allow for a 
space-separated list of URIs.  That's the only reason this statement, 
and the SP explicitly, was included in the pre-processing steps.

Best regards,
Chris Weber

Received on Thursday, 24 November 2011 07:37:21 UTC