- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:45:14 +0200
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- CC: uri@w3.org
On 2012-10-23 10:36, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > I'm not subscribed to this list, but I guess there's a few points I can make. > > * This is not about the address bar. The address bar is UI. > Standardizing UI does not pass the test of time. > > * If you think the URL Standard fragments, you have cause and effect reversed. > > * Building on top of STD 66 is not practical. You want a single > algorithm that deals with parsing, resolving, and canonicalizing. Sounds like three algorithms with well-defined interfaces to me. > * That the URL standard will call the input a URL matches common > usage. Given that a relative URL can be empty string, a URL can indeed > be the empty string. Roy thinks this is absurd, I think it's quite > logical. The object model I will probably call "parsed URL", but I'm > open to suggestions. What's "common usage" may depend on context. It may be true for the browser world. > * For Julian, an example of a URL that would be invalid per STD 66 yet > is transmitted over the wire just fine: http://www.w3.org/% or > http://www.w3.org/?% Also fragments such as #™ do not undergo any > transformation. Fragments are pretty much parsed as literals except > for thirty or so code points. Again, I'm mainly interested in *valid* URIs where you think RFC 3986 needs fixing. > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 08:45:43 UTC