- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 20:59:36 -0400
- 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