W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > June 2008

Re: Error handling in URIs

From: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:47:50 +0200
To: uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <g3vaeu$q08$1@ger.gmane.org>

Felix Sasaki wrote:

> See a similar problem and a solution for the usage of the
> terms "URI" and "IRI" mentioned at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Jun/0110.html

Intentionally munging IRI and URI is bad for URI consumers
with no clue what to do with an IRI.  The <ihost> part is
not trivial.  Even the XML 1 spec. got it wrong, ending up
with percent-encoded gibberish for a <host>.  This breaks
existing software expecting *real* URIs, not IRIs.

>> Most people seem to understand the intent, as far as I
>> know you're the only person whom this has confused.

Clearly I don't like any "embrace, extend and extinguish",
RFC 3987 doesn't "update" 3986.  That HTML5 allows IRIs is
a major step, not some minor point.  URL = IRI is newspeak.
Why not use the term IRI for IRIs, if that's what it is ?

IRIs are cute for software supporting them.  But authors
reading the HTML5 memo need to be aware that this is not
everywhere the case.  Starting with the W3C validator as
popular "legacy" software.

 Frank
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2008 05:46:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:15:41 GMT