URI/IRI vs HTML-URL, was: Why Microsoft's authoritative=true won't work and is a bad idea

Justin James wrote:
>> There is no "URI group" -- there's a list of people subscribed to the 
>> URI mailing list. That being said, I haven't seen *any* kind of 
>> consensus that RFC3986 should be changed. I've seen some discussion 
>> about whether RFC3987bis should expand on the "LEIRI" topic, and it 
>> seems Martin Dürst was considering that input.
> 
> It seems to me that the following facts are true:
> 
> * The URI group/mailing list is not actively working to update or change the
> URI specs.

There is no URI working group. URI is a stable specification (full IETF 
standard), and there's no consensus that anything needs to be done with 
it with respect to "HTML URL".

There are individuals (?) working on a revision of the IRI spec, 
including Martin Dürst. That revision may contain more information about 
what's currently called LEIRI (Legacy Extended IRI), but I don't think 
there's consensus about whether this is really good idea. Head over to 
the URI mailing list and discuss it, if you're interested.

> * Over the last few weeks, it has become clear that the URI specs need to
> change for certain aspects of browser behavior and HTML to make sense and/or
> work right.

Nope.

What has become clear is that HTML needs to handle a superset of what 
IRI allows, and also needs to special case IRI->URI conversion for query 
components.

That can be done in a separate spec, defining a mapping from "HTTP URL" 
to IRI reference, and then letting the default URI/IRI rules apply.

It's not yet clear whether the same is needed outside HTML. Still 
waiting for examples.

> * The current URI/URL/"HTTP URL"/IRI breakout is artificial and can/should
> be fixed in the URI spec.

Not sure what you call "breakout", and what you want fixed.

> If what Julian says is correct (and I have no reason to doubt it), how do we
> get some traction on this issue? Who do we engage? Does it make sense,
> instead of trying to do the work of an active URI group within the HTML 5
> spec (the "HTTP URL" initiative) for a number of us to get involved with
> getting an *active* URI group going and simply working within that framework
> on that issue? Yes, it might feel like "packing the court", but if the spec
> is in desperate need of some reality-based changes, and there is no *active*
> group willing or able to even consider changes, then I don't see any issue
> with it.

I think HTML5 defining local rules for treatment of identifiers in HTML 
documents is fine. Optimally this is done by defining a mapping to IRI 
(which as far as I understand currently is not the case).

*If* more specifications need the same kind of mapping (and that's still 
an "if" for me), it would make sense to extract these mapping rules into 
a separate spec. Should these specs live in W3C land, it would probably 
make sense to make this a W3C activity.

BR, Julian

Received on Monday, 7 July 2008 14:05:52 UTC