W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2014

Re: [whatwg] [url] Feedback from TPAC

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 20:59:36 -0400
Message-ID: <545581F8.7000209@intertwingly.net>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Cc: WhatWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On 11/01/2014 07:18 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> Thanks, Sam, for this great summary -- I hadn't taken notes, and was
> hoping that someone who was (or who has a better memory than I) would
> post something.
>
> One minor tweak, at the end:
>
>> More specifically, if something along these lines I describe above were
>> done, the IETF would be open to the idea of errata to RFC3987 and updating
>> specs to reference URLs.
>
> Errata to 3986, that is, not 3987.  After this, 3987 will be
> considered obsolete (the IESG might move to mark it "Historic", or
> some such).

Thanks for the correction.  I did indeed mean errata to 3986.

- Sam Ruby

> Barry, IETF Applications AD
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> bcc: WebApps, IETF, TAG in the hopes that replies go to a single place.
>>
>> - - -
>>
>> I took the opportunity this week to meet with a number of parties interested
>> in the topic of URLs including not only a number of Working Groups, AC and
>> AB members, but also members of the TAG and members of the IETF.
>>
>> Some of the feedback related to the proposal I am working on[1].  Some of
>> the feedback related to mechanics (example: employing Travis to do build
>> checks, something that makes more sense on the master copy of a given
>> specification than on a hopefully temporary branch.  These are not the
>> topics of this email.
>>
>> The remaining items are more general, and are the subject of this note.  As
>> is often the case, they are intertwined.  I'll simply jump into the middle
>> and work outwards from there.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> The nature of the world is that there will continue to be people who define
>> more schemes.  A current example is http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/220 (search
>> for "New URI scheme for naming stored modules, classes, and resources").
>> And people who are doing so will have a tendency to look to the IETF.
>>
>> Meanwhile, The IETF is actively working on a update:
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg-04
>>
>> They are meeting F2F in a little over a week[2].  URIs in general, and this
>> proposal in specific will be discussed, and for that reason now would be a
>> good time to provide feedback.  I've only quickly scanned it, but it appears
>> sane to me in that it basically says that new schemes will not be viewed as
>> relative schemes[3].
>>
>> The obvious disconnect is that this is a registry for URI schemes, not URLs.
>> It looks to me like making a few, small, surgical updates to the URL
>> Standard would stitch all this together.
>>
>> 1) Change the URL Goals to only obsolete RFC 3987, not RFC 3986 too.
>>
>> 2) Reference draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-scheme-reg in
>> https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#url-writing as the way to register schemes,
>> stating that the set of valid URI schemes is the set of valid URL schemes.
>>
>> 3) Explicitly state that canonical URLs (i.e., the output of the URL parse
>> step) not only round trip but also are valid URIs.  If there are any RFC
>> 3986 errata and/or willful violations necessary to make that a true
>> statement, so be it.
>>
>> That's it.  The rest of the URL specification can stand as is.
>>
>> What this means operationally is that there are two terms, URIs and URLs.
>> URIs would be of a legacy, academic topic that may be of relevance to some
>> (primarily back-end server) applications.  URLs are most people, and most
>> applications, will be concerned with.  This includes all the specifications
>> which today reference IRIs (as an example, RFC 4287, namely, Atom).
>>
>> My sense was that all of the people I talked to were generally OK with this,
>> and that we would be likely to see statements from both the IETF and the W3C
>> TAG along these lines mid November-ish, most likely just after IETF meeting
>> 91.
>>
>> More specifically, if something along these lines I describe above were
>> done, the IETF would be open to the idea of errata to RFC3987 and updating
>> specs to reference URLs.
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
>> [1] http://intertwingly.net/projects/pegurl/url.html
>> [2] https://www.ietf.org/meeting/91/index.html
>> [3] https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#relative-scheme
>>
>
Received on Sunday, 2 November 2014 01:00:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:09:32 UTC