- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:08:37 +0200
- To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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