W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2009

[whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:25:19 +0100
Message-ID: <49C7638F.3070604@gmx.de>
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> Be careful; depending on what you call "Web content". For instance, I 
>> would consider the Atom feed content (RFC4287) as "Web content", but 
>> Atom really uses IRIs, and doesn't need workarounds for broken IRIs in 
>> content (as far as I can tell).
> 
> Are you sure browser implementations of feeds reject non-IRIs in some 
> way? I would expect them to use the same URL handling everywhere.

I wasn't talking of "browser implementations of feeds", but feed readers 
in general.

>> Don't leak out workarounds into areas where they aren't needed.
> 
> I'm not convinced that having two ways of handling essentially the same 
> thing is good.

It's unavoidable, as the relaxed syntax doesn't work in many cases, for 
instance, when whitespace acts as a delimiter.

BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 03:25:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:47:49 GMT