Re: URL, URI and the w3c

On 14. Jun 2022, at 12:25, Daniel Stenberg <> wrote:
>> I noted that some specs reference URL/URI from
>> while others use & co.
>> I assume that those specs are aligned, isn't it?
> They are very much not aligned. There are plenty of ways we can write URLs and URIs that parse differently based on these specs. I collect some of those issues here:

WHATWG describes Browser URLs.  URIs are used outside browsers, and even with different schemes than http/https, so it is good that we have a reference for URIs (3986) and IRIs (3987) in general.  The RFCs are also a stable reference, which is useful for specifications that don’t want to (or can’t) track WHATWG.

I think that 3986/3987 would be useful subjects for a revision, but I’m not sure there is energy for that.

On a related note, we have started extracting the data model from the URI syntax and written it up in — that was an interesting exercise (the idea is to replace the usually abysmal URI parsers found in low-resource IoT space by converting URIs/IRIs into CRIs before they enter the constrained domain; this is essentially a slight generalization of what CoAP already does).

Grüße, Carsten

Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2022 11:24:10 UTC