On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:16:14 +0200, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 06:18:18 +0200, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> > wrote: >> As discussed at the bar bof/informal liaison in SF, this seems to be >> more of a URI issue; i.e., HTML and browser vendors need a named >> construct ("dirty URI", "hypertext reference", etc.) for what goes into >> the process, but from an HTTP perspective, this isn't evident. >> >> AIUI the follow-up will happen on the URI mailing list. > > Allowing relative URIs hardly seems a "dirty URI" issue. As for the > actual "dirty URI" issue, that isn't solved as long as HTTP keeps > insisting the header takes an actual URI rather than such a "dirty URI". Also, it is not just browsers, this affects all kinds of clients that try to do something with Web pages: curl, wget, feed finder clients, etc. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 13:09:24 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:19 UTC