- From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 08:49:56 -0700
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- 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>
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote: > 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. > I agree. But that argues that an xmpp URI seen in a jabber context and an xmpp URI seen in a web context should be the same; or, to re-iterate, that a fork would be harmful. Changing the URI parsing in web contexts only is likely to be problematic because of leakage. Avoiding that by retaining one way is my personal preference for the way forward. But if those working on web-specific specs do not agree and choose to fork, then we *must* mark the difference between the contexts, or the results will be even worse. regards, Ted Hardie > 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 15:50:31 UTC