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

[whatwg] Web Addresses vs Legacy Extended IRI

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:26:38 +0100
Message-ID: <op.uq8sqonp64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:58:59 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de>  
wrote:
> Whitespace is a big issue - auto-highlighting will fail all over the  
> place.

Auto-higlighting and linking code already fails all over the place due to  
e.g. punctation issues. A solution for whitespace specifically is to  
simply forbid it, but still require parsers to handle it as browsers  
already do for HTML and XMLHttpRequest. Apparently browsers also handle it  
for HTTP as otherwise e.g. http://www.usafa.af.mil/ would not work which  
returns a 302 with "Location: index.cfm?catname=AFA Homepage". Similarly  
http://www.flightsimulator.nl/ gives a URL in the Location header that  
contains a \ which is also "illegal" but it is handled fine. (Thanks to  
Philip`)

(Whitespace is one of the things LEIRIs "introduce" by the way.)


>>> The issue is that it's *not* the same thing.
>>
>> Well, no, not exactly. But they perform essentially the same task,  
>> modulo a few characters. And since one is a superset of the other (as  
>> long as URL encoding is UTF-8) I don't see a point in having both.
>
> Well, then let's just agree that we disagree on that.

I would still be interested in hearing your point. Is it whitespace?


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 04:26:38 GMT

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