- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 17:07:42 +0200
- To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "plh@w3.org" <plh@w3.org>, "Peter Saint-Andre (stpeter@stpeter.im)" <stpeter@stpeter.im>, "Pete Resnick (presnick@qualcomm.com)" <presnick@qualcomm.com>, "Martin Dürst (duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp)" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
Hi Ted, On 15/10/2012 16:30 , Ted Hardie wrote: > On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: >> Oh, also, you guys keep mentioning "HTML5". This really is about all >> URLs everywhere, XMLHttpRequest, CSS, HTTP Location header, SVG >> xlink:href, SVG href, etc. > > I think this summarizes the primary disconnect: that "all URLs > everywhere" is limited to the web. There are flocks of URLs/URIs in > use outside the web, and there needs to be a very basic agreement of > whether the development of common methods for parsing and other > handling *across the web and non-web use cases* is a goal or a > non-goal. URLs to non-Web things (e.g. mailto:, smsto:, tel:, etc.) happen in Web contexts. Libraries written to process those in Web contexts are likely to be reused elsewhere. There isn't really an option to have some of this in Web use cases and something else outside of it. If it's used for the Web, it *will* leak. Probably a lot, and probably fast. So if interoperable processing of URLs is a goal (and I personally believe it is), and if it is being defined, I am not certain that there is much of a goal/non-goal choice to make. It's more likely a choice of getting together to do it, or fighting about it. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Monday, 15 October 2012 15:08:02 UTC