- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:30:58 +0200
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
[Also moving this off list as I don't think it's relevant to most.] On 22/09/2014 16:06 , Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote: >> Right. So I can't speak for the people who are working on that, but I can >> vouch that they are open to feedback and have no foul intention whatsoever. > > I've yet to receive replies to the feedback I gave when it was announced. I suspect that pretty much everything froze with the objections. I'm pretty sure that Dan will be handling your feedback. >> Overall, Anne's URL spec puts us all in a much better situation than we were >> when we only had the RFCs. However, there are (likely mostly non-Web) >> implementations and domains that are more strictly close the RFCs. If we >> could keep those worlds separate, we'd all be fine, but of course these >> things have a tendency to leak. As a result, some form of unified URL spec >> that can work across the board makes sense to me (though it's not on my >> personal high priority list). If there are people interested in the work and >> it can be done through non-disruptive PRs I'm very much fine with it. > > It makes sense. However, so far we haven't even tested yet whether > browsers can migrate from their current (somewhat broken) URL strategy > to something that is slightly saner. I was thinking about that. We have a test suite for URL but apparently it's not complete enough to cover all the ground (I haven't checked but IIRC Mike has). Would you estimate that we're at a point where we can try to prod browsers in that direction or do you reckon you need more tinkering on the spec first? If the former, I would think that a test suite would be a decent place to start. > Let alone whether they can > migrate to something they never conformed with in the first place and > which was written while simply ignoring important deployments. Yeah, I can't say that's something that worries me deeply now. We can see if that bridge is worth crossing when we get there. The previous part is far more important. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Monday, 22 September 2014 14:31:14 UTC