Re: XHR LC comments

Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Julian Reschke wrote:
>> - If the URL parameter can be a IRI, then somewhere later on we need to 
>> state that it needs to be transformed to a URI before it's put on the wire.
> 
> Actually that is for the HTTP specification to define, which right now
> does so implicitly by allowing only URIs. Restating requirements usually
> leads to specifications stating conflicting requirements, it's best not
> done at all, except in informative notes clearly limited to the known
> cases (e.g., "Note: Because HTTP/1.0 and HTTP/1.1 allow only URIs as
> request URIs, user agents will transform the IRI to an URI when creating
> the request message.", though I would not add this).

And HTTPbis is not going to change that, as referencing RFC3987 would be 
a downref.

XHR is defining an HTTP API. If that API allows IRIs where HTTP wants 
URIs, then I think it should be stated somewhere that a transformation 
needs to take place.

BR, Julian